Posted on 06/25/2015 9:40:57 AM PDT by Starman417
John Roberts is a liar.
Acting as Obama's champion for the second time, The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare.
From the ruling:
The argument that the phrase “established by the State” would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive. This Court’s “preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute.”Roberts has interpreted the law to mean something other than what is written in order to save it. At one time he promised not to do that.Lamie v. United States Trustee
, 540 U. S. 526, 536. And rigorous application of thatcanon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair constructionof the Affordable Care Act, which contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. The Court nevertheless must do its best, “bear-ing in mind the ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’ ”
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA
, 573 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 9–15. (c) Given that the text is ambiguous, the Court must look to the broader structure of the Act to determine whether one of Section 36B’s “permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”
United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
, 484 U. S. 365, 371. Here, the statutory scheme compels the Court to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. Under petitioners’ reading, the Act would not work in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Act’s three major reforms—the tax credits—would not apply. And a second major reform—the cov-erage requirement—would not apply in a meaningful way, because so many individuals would be exempt from the requirement without the tax credits. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Act’s three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage re-quirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market intoa death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to op-erate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.Pp. 15–19.
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”Yet that is exactly what they did. They protected the political choices. Somehow all the Gruber evidence, which made absolutely clear that the law was written intentionally to be extortionary, meant nothing in the end.“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
2 justices now appointed by Bushes, both LIBERALS!!!!! They want another Bush NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!!!!
Here comes the gay marriage ruling soon to be sanctioned by the Supreme puppets. They should don rainbow robes for the occasion. God is the Ultimate Judge and perverted false marriage will be burned in the fire and will not stand in the new millenium when it comes.
Yup, said the same thing on another thread.
And soon, if we are not there already, we will be down to just the Executive.
It’s no surprise that the treasonous Roberts strikes again.
What amazed me was that Kennedy - who was infuriated with Roberts for switching at the last moment at the first Obamacare vote - now sides with him.
It’s all about the bribery and money.
If our government no longer has to follow its own law, why do any of us?
The Congress and Senate should both move to introduce bills that reject the Court’s ruling and do so in the future. After all, they are the Law Makers, not those make rulings. All laws should flow from the Congress and if necessary the Senate, period.
Agree completely.
There is no law. There are no words.
I would say “We are no longer a nation a laws, but a nation of men” but that would be sexist and hurtful to the transgendered community.
So Roberts is being blackmailed? This pisses me off. Does this turd believe that his safety is more important than the safety of the Nation?
All branches of government have become corrupt.
...and possibly racist.
Roberts is a Knights of Malta NWO globalist fraud. He will do what the masterminds want.
The Roberts Court renders the American People unrepresented.
I wish I could say that the SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional. It violates Article IV Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The people's representatives wrote the law one way; SCOTUS changed it to be something else.
We are no longer in a Republican form of government. What do we do when SCOTUS itself becomes unconstitutional?
-PJ
In a banana republic pirate law is the only real law.
Perhaps we can get them to declare that 26 U.S. Code Chapter 53 does not mean what it says.
So it doesn’t mean what it sez.
The “eminent tribunal”.
Lincoln warned us about this in his First Innaugural when he said:
“............if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
I maintain that we have ceased to be our own rulers
send bannanas to the steps of the court?
how do reach the self important judiciary?
I have my doubts that they are reachable at all.
Roberts’ court may have just forced the issue of an Article V convention, as the only alternative to presidential dictatorship.
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.