The SCOTUS has ruled words no longer have any meaning.

[Mr VJP]

The Supreme Court has handed down a controversial decision in regards to Affordable Care Act subsidies. The ruling is a major victory for the Obama administration and saves the law the clutches of doom.

 

The 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell allows for federal subsidies on state healthcare exchanges established by the federal government under the ACA. However, the law itself states that only exchanges established by states would be eligible for subsidies.

 

Those arguing on behalf of the subsidies to the exchanges said that the particular passage of the law shouldn’t be read literally.

 

In a demonstration of twisted logic, the majority has held that the word “State” should be considered in its “context” rather than its actual meaning. The Court has effectively rewritten the law to save it.

 

The decision has left Justice Antonin Scalia searing and his dissent was scathing.

 

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” he wrote.

 

Scalia implied the Court was more concerned with political motives than doing their jobs.

 

“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,” the dissent says.

 

Scalia went on to say that if Congress did a poor job drafting the law, that is was not the Court’s problem. In his opinion, it is up to the Congress to save Obamacare, not the Supreme Court.

 

This isn’t the first time the Court has rewritten the ACA to save it.

 

Three years ago, when Obamacare first went to the Supreme Court, in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts saved the law by interpreting its penalty for those without insurance as a tax.

 

This ruling came despite the fact that the word “tax” was not used in the ACA and the law did not pass Congress as a tax bill.

 

Now the Court has done it again, and in doing they create a dangerous precedence. The Court is not supposed to write law, only determine its constitutionality. As Scalia stated, the Congress is responsible for writing laws and if one is written poorly it is not the Court’s concern.

 

Scalia’s lament is sadly on target. We are becoming a society where words have no meaning.

 

A consequence of this will be governments with no constraints.

 

Today will be remembered as the day the US Constitution DIED!

 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Mr VJP]

“More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”

 

Justice Scalia

[The_Field_Ager]

They must have some fat dossier of filth on Roberts. It is the only thing that makes sense, in terms of him betraying his ideological background as often as he does.

[Mr VJP]

Even if Roberts sided with the dissenting 3, the ruling would still be the same.

 

[steve863]

So 6 of the 9 justices can now officially be deemed liberal?  I know at least a couple of people (both of them posters on this site) who will be having a coronary over this! LOL

 

 

 

[Trial153]

An today is another great day for the SCOTUS .......love watching rally out side the court waiting for today's ruling ....you will see every flag and banner except and American flag....kind of speaks volumes

[Trial153]

Don't be too quick to put away Rebel flag, because with the federal government continuing to take ****s on states rights...we might just need them.

[Mr VJP]

So 6 of the 9 justices can now officially be deemed liberal?  I know at least a couple of people (both of them posters on this site) who will be having a coronary over this! LOL

 

 

Laugh now Steve.  You will not be laughing when you see how easy it will now be for the Fed to determine what you no longer have any right to do.

 

I never cease to be amazed by how little foresight the majority of America's electorate has.

 

As I said prior, the US Constitution has just been rendered meaningless.  The next attack will be on the 2nd Amendment, then the 1st Amendment, and continually move on from there.

 

If not for my own progeny, I really wouldn't care about the rest of the fools in this land who deserve the oppression that will eventually engulf all of them.

[The_Field_Ager]

Joseph de Maistre: "Every country has the government it deserves"

[The_Field_Ager]

The Texas governor fires a warning shot:

 

 

 

“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.

“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.

“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”
- Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas

 

[Doc]

Gosh, I hate that term SCOTUS!! It always sounds like a male body part.

[landtracdeerhunter]

The ship continues to sink. When it,s at the bottom of the ocean, liberals will be scratching their heads wondering what happen.

I'm sure it will be Bush's fault!

[ants]

Just because they played the "What they REALLY meant was…." game with Obama care ,dose not mean that they will ever do that with anything else….   Right?

[Mr VJP]

Gosh, I hate that term SCOTUS!! It always sounds like a male body part.

 

That's just petty dickering.

[greg54]

The ship continues to sink. When it,s at the bottom of the ocean, liberals will be scratching their heads wondering what happen.

I'm sure it will be Bush's fault!

So true!! Its raining here and I think Ch 4 weather said 70% chance it's Bush's fault!!

[Mr VJP]

I believe Leftist Liberals are trying to sink the ship.  Their hatred of the country is quite obvious.

 

They want to replaced it with something more palatable to socialists and communists once it has been sunk.

 

[The_Field_Ager]

 

 

They want to replaced it with something more palatable to socialists and communists once it has been sunk.

 

 

A gulag or two.

[Mr VJP]

Liberals demand we govern through empathy-based jurisprudence rather than anything resembling the antiquated tenants of founding principles. If you care about the latter more than you do the former, the fact that Supreme Court justices are aping the consequentialist arguments of the left and then working backward to make their legal justifications is probably the worst sign for checks and balances yet.

 

We’re going to be inundated with legal interpretations over the next few days. But imagine for a moment if a Supreme Court justice argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed to improve marriage rather than destroy it so we must focus on the former rather than the latter and uphold any retroactive provisions the Bush administration cooked up to make that law work. Or imagine the same for any legislation you disagree with.

 

Let’s concede to Roberts that the intention of every politician is to improve on things. Republicans believe that further nationalizing health insurance is a bad idea and makes markets less competitive and more expensive. By overturning the law, they want to improve health insurance markets, as well. That’s why we have legislatures, to debate these points of view and then pass bills. That legislation codifies what a majority can agree on. And we have courts to judge the constitutionality of laws, not to bore into the souls of politicians to decipher their true intent or find justifications to rubber-stamp “democracy” — as Roberts puts it.

 

Roberts, abandoning law, laments that Obamacare was drafted in a haphazard and vague way, right before ruling that laws can be implemented in any way the executive branch sees fit, as long as judges deem it's intentions righteous.

 

But on the political side, this ruling means we can no longer rely on government institutions to check one another or themselves. Conservatives — or whatever party is in the minority — have to continue to be the check. Any kind of reform should be opposed because any kind of reform, no matter how narrow the focus theoretically is, will be an opportunity for boundless revision and scope. All a political party needs to do is cobble together a temporary majority, push through legislation that expands federal power and then find some clairvoyant judges dedicated to empathy rather than their oath. All of this is fine, according to the Supreme Court, as long as politicians had good intentions.

 

[Mr VJP]

Abe Lincoln summed up our modern Supreme Court perfectly, when it made a decision in his day.

 

"If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.  But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country…

 

When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

 

A. Lincoln

 

Sound about right?

 

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/abraham-lincoln-perfectly-explains-the-modern-supreme-court

Edited June 27, 2015 by Mr VJP

[greg54]

Abe Lincoln summed up our modern Supreme Court perfectly, when it made a decision in his day.

 

"If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.  But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country…

 

When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

 

A. Lincoln

 

Sound about right?

 

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/abraham-lincoln-perfectly-explains-the-modern-supreme-court

YES

[Mr VJP]

[diplomat019]

didn't abe lincoln institute martial law?  and suspend habeas corpus?

[diplomat019]

 

 

Edited July 4, 2015 by diplomat019

[Mr VJP]

Yes he did.  And Obama seems to have plans to do the same in the near future.

 

[diplomat019]

until that happens abe makes barry look like ron paul on roids