The twisted logic of John Roberts’ ObamaCare ruling

The logic of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the latest challenge to Obamacare is simple: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

It’s true because of course the goal was to improve markets. It’s absurd because government policies often have the opposite effect of what is intended — and the moral and legal onus in such situations falls on those who advanced the policies in the first place, not those who attempt to undo them.

2759 Jesus "was praying at a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, 'Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.'"1 In response to this request the Lord entrusts to his disciples and to his Church the fundamental Christian prayer.

St. Luke presents a brief text of five petitions,

2 while St. Matthew gives a more developed version of seven petitions.

3 The liturgical tradition of the Church has retained St. Matthew's text:

Our Father who art in heaven,

hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive those who trespass against us,

and lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

********

Supreme Court ObamaCare decision: It make me sad to watch the Supreme Court use what I describe as zig-zag, upside logic to conclude that the word "state" in the law refers to a generic government exchange and not to exchanges in the individual 50 states.

Supreme Court logic/reasoning and the Lord's Prayer?

Then I started thinking: I wonder what the result would look like if the Supreme Court used the same upside-down logic/reasoning it used in its ObamaCare decision if it was asked to evaluate the Lord's Prayer.

So here goes.

The following is what I believe that Supreme Court Justice Roberts would say about the phrases in the Lord's Prayer that is posted at the beginning of this message if he was asked to evaluate the Prayer.

1. "Our Father who art in heaven,

ROBERTS: "Father? Unacceptable. That is a human term and is not acceptable. What did this Jesus person really mean?

ROBERTS: "Heaven is just not acceptable, because no one has proof that a place like heaven even exists.

2. "Hallowed be thy name?

ROBERTS: What is this word "Hallowed" all about? Did Jesus really mean "Holy?" What did Jesus mean by "Name"? Does this mean that, according to Jesus, the "Father" has a name like Tom or John or Barack?

3. "Thy kingdom come

ROBERTS: What kingdom is this about? Is it invisible or visible? Is it located somewhere out in space, like on one of the billion planets out there? Very confusing.

4. "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven

ROBERTS: "Will"? This Father has a will? Amazing! Does Jesus mean that this invisible Father has free will, or some other type of will unique to this so-called Father?

ROBERTS: What and where is this heaven place? If no one has any idea what is in this heaven, what does Jesus mean by heaven? Is it on another planet in space or is just part of his imagination?

5." Give us this day our daily bread,

ROBERTS: What does this Jesus mean by "bread"? Is he talking about grocery bread one finds at a place like WALMART? Or is he talking about special deli bread? He is certainly not very clear.

6."and forgive us our trespasses

ROBERTS: This is a hard one. Is Jesus talking about trespassing on another person's property? This seems like such a minor offense, so why would this "Father" even bother to busy himself with such a minor action. What laws would the trespasser really be breaking?

7. "as we forgive those who trespass against us,

ROBERTS: "Again, what property laws are these trespassers breaking. and what does this Jesus mean by trespassers? Very confusing. Are we supposed to forgive people who run all over our property or who sneak into our house late at night and try to steal our stuff?

8. "and lead us not into temptation

ROBERTS: Again, very confusing. What does this Jesus mean by temptation? Temptation can refer to anything from being tempted to cheat on a school exam or to look at naughty pictures. What exactly is Jesus talking abut "temptation"? And is Jesus really saying that this "Father" would intentionally take a person by the hand and make him do something that was NOT nice. Again, what does the word "temptation" really mean.

Very confusing.

9. "but deliver us from evil.

ROBERTS: Another hard one. What exactly is this "evil" Jesus is talking about? Is it something a person creates himself, or is it something this invisible "Father" with no name makes up?

ROBERTS:"Deliver?" Is Jesus referring to the Post Office or some Pizza Delivery Service? Very confusing. How can an invisible person like this invisible "Father" deliver anything? Does he have a car or a plane?

********

In closing, as I see it, if Justice Roberts used the same upside-down logic he used to write his ObamaCare opinion in favor of Obama on an analysis of the Lord's Prayer, he would look like a fool.

Ten Commandments: Can you imagine how foolish Roberts would look if he applied his ObamaCare absurd logic to his analysis of the Ten Commandments.

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.