No longer does the Supreme Court
really to protect the people.
In their most recent ruling on the
Affordable Healthcare Act, 6 justices voted against 3 to allow Obamacare to
survive yet again.
This means millions of Americans will
be given the opportunity to receive taxpayer supported health insurance at the
expense of millions more.
The problem here is how the Supreme
Court went out of their way to redefine the law.
The majority acknowledged that the
word “State” was, at best, “ambiguous.” And it rejected the idea that an
executive agency, in this case the Internal Revenue Service, could decide
the meaning of that term.
Rewriting the law is evidently meant
for the courts, not the administration–or Congress.
The majority–led, again, by Chief
Justice John Roberts, who infamously interpreted a “penalty” as a tax to uphold
Obamacare’s constitutionality in 2012–held that the “context” of the word
“State” mattered more than the “most natural reading.”
And the context was that Obamacare
had to be saved from itself. After all, Congress could not have meant to pass a
bad, self-defeating policy, could it?
The dissent, by Justice Antonin
Scalia, was blistering.
“Words no longer have meaning if an
Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by
the State,'” he wrote.
“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.”
If a law was badly formulated, that
was not the Court’s problem, he argued. It was up to Congress to rescue the
subsidies for Obamacare, not the Justices. And if people did not like it,
tough: that was why the Justices were meant to serve life terms. They were
meant to be above politics.
Instead, Scalia noted, the Court had
adopted a particular political bent.
He concluded:
We should start calling this law
SCOTUScare.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security
Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions
on the Act will surely be remembered through the years….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 looks like if anything most of
congress as well as the Supreme Court are firmly in the executives’ pocket.
Rarely does the Supreme Court rule
agains the President, and if they do it’s generally on something relatively
small and insignificant.
Do you think the legislation has a
chance of being repealed if a Republican wins in 2016? Or will the GOP allow it
to continue forward?
Source:http://teapartyupdate.com/the-supreme-courts-horrifying-decision-regarding-obamacare/
No comments:
Post a Comment