It's over. Wormer Roberts dropped the big one. Last one out ... turn out the lights.
It's over. Wormer Roberts dropped the big one. Last one out ... turn out the lights.
That’s the good guy - Scalia. Roberts looks like a movie star and is as Calloway one.
He may retire. Probably sees no reason to remain in the clown car any longer.
Great dissenting opinion. For all the good it does us.
Being happy about a dissenting voice on a stacked court strikes me as rather pathetic.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.
Hans v. Louisiana (1890) - citizens cannot sue their state for violating their rights.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal”.
Buck v. Bell (1927) - stated are permitted to forcibly sterilize the unfit, including the intellectually disabled.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) - a decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. / Runyon v. McCrary (1968 / 1976) - declared that Congress’s power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.
Roe v. Wade (1973) - which permits murder based on the age of the victim, and is systematically exterminating black Americans of slave ancestry and many others.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) - Granted administrative agencies broad deference in creating regulations based on administrative interpretations of laws and thus granted administrative agencies of the executive branch broad lawmaking powers.
Kelo v. City of New London (2005) - declared that using the power of eminent domain to take property from poorer people and give the property to large corporations (who pay more taxes) to be a “public use” under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) - permits Congress to tax any event or non-event it wishes.
King v. Burwell (2015) - The written law does not matter if the president wishes to interpret it differently from how it is written. The “Humpty Dumpty” decision.
Through the Looking Glass (1872):
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Rush just said that Roberts laughed at Scalia’s dissent. If that is the case, it was not a laugh, it was a taunt. Taunted Scalia for wanted to uphold judicial logic.
Antonin Scalia:
“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of” ...
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
“This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious — so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it” ...
“The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery...”
“Pure applesauce ... Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the ‘interests of graduate students’ into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has ‘graduate students,’ so that ‘graduate students’ must really mean ‘graduate or undergraduate students’? Surely not.’”
“Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges,” ...
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
“And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
It is no longer the Supreme Court. It is the EXTREME Court!
If Obamacare is not reversed it will result in CW2. Unfortunately CW2 may be inevitable anyway. It will be certain if the SC forces states to accept homosexual marriage.
I don’t “get” how, if you can get away with something long enough, affect enough people, or do it long enough (i.e., a year or two), it’s A-OK. SCOTUS has done it here with SCOTUScare (love that!) and the Administration is doing the same with illegal immigration.
No laws count so long as failure to obey them involves a lot of people. Shall we all go out on a murder binge? All just stop paying taxes? All drive down the highway at 120 mph? Which laws are valid, which ones aren’t? Who knows?
Ten years ago, if I had written this admin's events to date as a movie script I would have been mocked and ridiculed.
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone. But most of all I have stacks of FBI and NSA folders." Obama.
Roberts’ opinion is that law(s), esp. this Obamacare, were passed by representatives elected from the people, and his job is to uphold such law(s). If you don’t like the law(s), elect some one else to represent the law-writing.
Isn’t that enough ground to remove him from SC?
It is no longer the Supreme Court. It is the EXTREME Court!
SCOTUSCare is the new term for this federal POS. The Roberts court is a disappointment...