Our side doesn't have the guts!
Posted on 06/26/2015 6:27:43 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
The Chief Justice again rewrites ObamaCare in order to save it.
For the second time in three years, Chief Justice John Roberts has rewritten the Affordable Care Act in order to save it. Beyond its implications for health care, the Court’s 6-3 ruling in King v. Burwell is a landmark that betrays the Chief’s vow to be “an umpire,” not a legislator in robes. He stands revealed as a most political Justice.
The black-letter language of ObamaCare limits insurance subsidies to “an Exchange established by the State.” But the Democrats who wrote the bill in 2010 never imagined that 36 states would refuse to participate. So the White House through the IRS wrote a regulation that also opened the subsidy spigots to exchanges established by the federal government.
***
Chief Justice Roberts has now become a co-conspirator in this executive law-making. With the verve of a legislator, he has effectively amended the statute to read “established by the State—or by the way the Federal Government.” His opinion—joined by the four liberal Justices and Anthony Kennedy —is all the more startling because it goes beyond normal deference to regulators.
Chief Justice Roberts concedes that the challengers’ arguments “about the plain meaning” of the law “are strong.” But then he writes that Congress in its 2010 haste bypassed “the traditional legislative process” and thus “the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” So because ObamaCare is a bad law, the Court must interpret it differently from other laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
2 of the 3 Branches of government appear to be completely out of the game.
No need for more theatrical heated debates or grand standings on any future legislations, immigration, trade, etc.
What is the point?
Here is a thought exercise for discussion - Suppose Congress were to pass a separate act and override Obama’s veto that specifically prohibits the government from giving subsidies to those states that had not set up exchanges.
What happens then?
John Roberts is simply a writer
===> immigration, trade, marriage, etc.
“Reprobate”.
You go it spot on. I don’t think we have ever impeached a Supreme Court Justice, but now would be a great time.
that's an odd sounding phrase to my American ears. We don't have a "state"; we have several states. Was the bill written by Frenchmen or Germans?
On second thought. Let’s wait on the impeachment of Roberts until the White House Reprobate is out of office!
I think a President Cruz would be all in on some House Cleaning!
Perhaps the least credible part of the Chief’s opinion is the false judicial modesty in his closing. “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—‘to say what the law is,’” he writes, citing Marbury v. Madison. “That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done.” By that, Chief Justice John Marshall meant interpret the law, not rewrite it.
Emphasis mine.
I'm afraid you're being too optimistic.
I have plenty other choice words to say. But ....
“Sell-Out” would be the least offensive to be seen here.
What kind of human being can you describe Roberts, that he completely lost his soul?
This ruling makes perfect sense given today’s “pretend to be anything you want” world.
There is dirt on this turd. He is an assclown and nothing but!!!
Well, what I want to know is what did George Walker Bush know and when did he know it.
Criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
