Skip to comments.Scalia leads scathing dissent on ObamaCare ruling, dubs law 'SCOTUScare'
Posted on 06/25/2015 8:45:29 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare, Scalia wrote, referring to the several times the high court has ruled on controversial parts of ObamaCare.
Scalia blasted that reading.
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, Scalia wrote. That is of course quite absurd, and the courts 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wormer Roberts dropped the big one. Last one out ... turn out the lights.
“It’s over. “
It was over on election night 2008.
Don’t see how we can turn this around.
I had a funny funny feeling this was going to happen. Next up gay marriage in all 57 states.
“It’s over. Wormer Roberts dropped the big one. Last one out ... turn out the lights.”
Roberts was the gift to the Republic of George W. Bush. He wanted Harriet Miers instead of Alito. George H.W. Bush ended the conservative policies of Ronald Reagan, beginning the shift to the left furthered by his friend William Jefferson Clinton.
When the story of the end of the Republic is written, the Bush family will be shown to have played a major role.
Are black robes racist?...
From Scalias dissenting opinion...
The Courts decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American peoples decision to give Congress [a]ll legislative Powers enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial powerthe power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that [o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.
Yes, from federally socialized education (No Child Left Behind) to expansion of the welfare state (Medicare and "Faith Based welfare) Bush got the ball rolling for the Leftists behind Obama.
Sums it up quite nicely. As Roberts and the majority of SCOTUS-holes in DC now OWN this unconstitutional POS.
If any of us are ever under silly illusions of an objective court, this again reminds us that SCOTUS is just as political as the presidency or the Congress. And the Dims have been much more astute in making their political appointments to the court than Republicans.
(That assumes the two Bushes actually intended to appoint conservatives when they chose Souter and Roberts, and Harriet Meirs before W was forced to pick Alito, a doubtful assumption).
And it reminds us again how the Dims Borked Robert Bork and we ended up with Kennedy. And our pathetic Republican senators, rather than Borking obvious extreme leftist Dim nominees, actually go around bragging how they worked with the Dim president, and how the president has a right to appoint whomever he desires.
Terrible, the court is helping Obama ruin the country by sidestepping Congress. We’re a banana republic with no accountability to law or founding documents.
I would accept the outcome for this decision (which can be reversed through legislation) and win on the marriage case (which will establish an irreversible “civil right” to redefine marriage to the degenerates’ demands.)
Scalia saw this coming 20 years ago——he is part of the problem. He embraced the Marxist Ginsburg and embraced the “democracy”idea of voting for abortion by majority if done by State is “Constitutional”-—which actually denies an unalienable Natural Right from human beings.
You can NEVER be a Marxist Supeme Court “Justice” like a Ginsburg-——it is impossible-—and, of course, we NOW know why-——we no longer HAVE a Constitution or Rule of Law. Roberts is being blackmailed big time by the Sodomite Marxists.
We now have “Rule of an evil Oligarchy” (unconstitutional) but that has existed for a few decades—actually since Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr removed Virtue from “Justice”-—the Queen of Virtue LOL so that Just Law could promote sodomy (vice), civil unions, and slavery (welfare). and other IRRATIONAL laws.
Scalia was smart enough to “KNOW” this.-—he still promoted abortion if “majority” in States “voted” for it!!!!!!! It is irrational-—removes Natural Law, Virtue, and Reason from Just Law——can’t do that EVER!!!!! in a true “justice” system.
Scalia tried to ride on the Slippery Slope-—but their is only ONE way to GO when you throw out Virtue like Holmes did-—and it and Reason was never replaced.
When the homosexual marriage ruling is made, expect to see states rights be eliminated.
As if we didn't already have enough reasons not to support yet another Bush, here's another one.
It was lost anyway. Kennedy voted for it, too.
To read a Scalia dissent is so very refreshing.
His plain language, and ROCK SOLID argument style is irreproachable. To cycle through the twists and turns of the concurrence makes ones eyeballs wiggle.
Only if one were to man-spread on the post modern-progressive “everything is grey” couch could one even recognize Roberts et al as Americans, much less as Constitution upholding jurists.
As the Honorable Justice proclaims; “I Dissent!”
2. We must obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:29
It's time for courageous governors and state legislatures to nullify this Obama/SCOTUScare, and simply refuse.
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.