Chief Justice John Roberts today joined Kennedy and all the Supreme Court Democrats in upholding Obama’s unconstitutional, deceptive, and indescribably destructive healthcare law. Today’s decision in King v. Burwell declares that even though the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) specifically required individuals to enroll through state exchanges to obtain subsidies, enrolling directly through the federal government is essentially the same thing. This decision once again displays the Supreme Court’s willingness to ignore the clear intent of law in order to achieve a politically desired result. For Roberts it has written into stone an unmistakable pattern.

Roberts’ first betrayal was his mind-bending decision to call Obamacare a legitimate tax, whereas Obama had defended the law on the basis that it wasn’t a tax. An article in Republic magazine aptly described Roberts’ first betrayal:

‘Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,’ wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we’ve seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

His next was almost certainly throwing in with the Court’s leftists on gay rights – ignoring the clear state’s rights issue involved by voting not to hear five cases that defended traditional marriage as a state’s right. “Almost certainly” because a decision to hear the cases required only four in agreement and votes are taken in secret. Scalia, Thomas and Alito were likely willing to hear the cases. Where was the fourth vote?

Now Roberts has done all possible to seal this country’s fate by once again siding with Obama. In today’s decision, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of its mind-numbing idiocy (see pp. 27 – 29):

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so… Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State’… Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Continue reading →