SCOTUS to the Executive Branch: We’ll take it from here

Hot Air ^ | 6-25-2015 | Gabriel Malor

[sheikdetailfeather]

The surprising thing about King v. Burwell, is not that subsidies were upheld. That was always a possibility (although not one I favored). The surprise, as with NFIB before it, was how Chief Justice Roberts did it. His decisions on Obamacare give one the impression that he’s not really paying attention to the arguments in front of him. In NFIB, the fight was overwhelmingly focused on whether the individual mandate was authorized by the commerce clause of the Constitution. Then Roberts came out of nowhere to hold that the individual mandate was authorized under the tax clause. It was a gut-punch: we’d won on the commerce clause and lost because of something so absurd that no one was talking about it.

[sheikdetailfeather]

Rush Limbaugh read some of this in the last half hour of his show. He said Roberts wrote the ruling in such a way that no court can overturn the subsidies in the future. Only congress and 60 votes in the senate.

[sheikdetailfeather]

I forgot to mention...no executive can overturn it either...

[Uncle Miltie]

Is there even an English word for Judicial Totalitarianism?

[Uncle Miltie]

Like hell. Make me President and watch as the Supremes try to enforce their anti-constitutional fiats against me. With what army A-holes?

[sheikdetailfeather]

I can think of some English words but I would be banned from the forum.

[Truth29]

How very emperor like of him. Any pronouncement can and will be voided by the collapse of the government since there is no continuity. After the US is spent into oblivion and becomes the land of the quick and the dead, little that is written today will have any meaning.

[NTHockey]

June 25, 2015 Nine people with no other talent other than to memorize useless data about court cases declared that words have no meaning.

June 26, 2015 These same nine people ruled that marriage has no meaning.

The next ruling will be that we have no meaning. May God have mercy on us. But not them.

[TBP]

I have the power to rewrite laws, says Roberts.

[TBP]

Pass a law saying that the subsidies cannot be issued through the Federal exchange, and deny the courts jurisdiction, as the Congress (legally) did through the 19th century. Nothing Roberts can do except fume.

[sten]

The thing is, the ONLY body that can modify the text of a law is CONGRESS. That’s it.

If Roberts and the SCOTUS modified a single word or punctuation mark... It IS NOT a law. Period.

The SCOTUS should be challenged on this IMMEDIATELY

[xzins]

It could be 51 votes in the Senate if they enact nuke option or regular order.

[sheikdetailfeather]

That is exactly what they should do.

[kallisti]

And that reset may be the only solution.

[john mirse]

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.