Little-Acorn
06-25-2015, 11:38 AM
The Roberts court has now established itself as a second legislative branch in the Federal government. And this one is unelected.
The Supremes' original role, of course, was to act as a judicial court: Deciding how the law as written, applied to real-world cases; and protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution.
But in two consecutive cases now, they have shifted their role to some new ones.
When asked a few years ago to decide whether the Mandate in the ACA law was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an astonishing decision that (a) the mandate was clearly unconstitutional since it penalized people for NOT buying something, (b) if the law had taxed them instead of penalizing them then it would be "barely acceptable" since Congress does have the power to tax, and (c) Roberts would now rewrite the law, removing the word "penalty" wherever it occurred (it was in the law in 17 places) and replacing it with "tax". He then declared the newly-written law constitutional and binding, despite its never having been passed in that form by Congress nor signed by the President.
In doing so, he ignored the fact that the Congress that passed the original ACA, never would have passed it in its new form. A number of Democrat congressmen had gone on the record declaring they would not vote for it if it contained any new taxes. And the leftist fanatics who wrote it, spent weeks assuring them that it did not contain any new taxes at all, only penalties, and that's why those congressmen should vote for it. So it passed by a one-vote margin.
The ink was barely dry before those same leftist fanatics were sending briefs to the Supreme Court, insisting that the law contained no penalties at all, only taxes. (In his novel "1984", George Orwell sardonically referred to this kind of complete reversal, as "doublethink".)
Chief Justice Roberts then announced a new purpose for the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law as written and upholding the Constitution, he now stated that the Court's new function, was to do whatever Congress wanted. If the law was constitutional as written, fine. If it wasn't, the Court would rewrite it, making whatever changes were needed so they could declare it "constitutional". And they would NOT ask Congress to vote on it in its new form, despite the Constitutional requirement that they do so.
And now they have done the same thing again, ironically to the same law (only a different part of it).
The law as written, says that states would get Federal subsidies if they set up their own exchanges. Roberts seems to have decided that they really meant that ALL states would get Federal subsidies. Despite the architects of the law publicly announcing that that was not its intent at all. They wrote it that way to force states to set up their own exchanges, by deliberately withholding funds from those that didn't.
So Roberts decided to change the law again, and proclaim that it now said that all states would get subsidies, despite its clear wording to the contrary. And, of course, the Congress would not be asked to vote on the law in its new form, despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.
There seems to be no point in our having a Congress any more. Or a Constitution, that lists requirements for making laws. Both are being freely ignored nowadays, by a Court that has decided it knows what they "really wanted" (never mind that the Congressmen themselves have declared otherwise), and that has decided it has the power to rewrite laws without sending them back to Congress for re-approval.
Obama isn't the only one with a pen and a phone. With a Court like this behind him legislating from the bench, he needs nothing more. And he especially doesn't need some pesky elected Congress that won't fall in line and obey his dictates.
He and his minions (on and off the bench) merely need to announce that Congress didn't really mean the laws they passed. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.
Orwell was right. He was merely 30-odd years early.
---------------------------------------
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8845449/scalia-dissent-obamacare-scotuscare
Justice Scalia: Don't call it Obamacare, call it SCOTUScare
Updated by Dara Lind on June 25, 2015, 10:33 a.m. ET
The Supreme Court just upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act in the case King v. Burwell , allowing 6.4 million people to keep tax subsidies they were getting to buy health insurance on the federal exchange on Healthcare.gov. Justice Antonin Scalia is pissed. The dissent he wrote in the case includes the line:
We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
In case you think we're making this up, here it is in the text of the dissent:
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Ei98UQZu8sf7PJEXGQoj-TiSgUU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3822746/Screen_Shot_2015-06-25_at_10.17.04_AM.0.png
(Supreme Court of the United States)
The dissent also includes the phrase "interpretive jiggery-pokery," and describes one of the arguments in Chief Justice Roberts's majority decision upholding the law as "pure applesauce."
The Supremes' original role, of course, was to act as a judicial court: Deciding how the law as written, applied to real-world cases; and protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution.
But in two consecutive cases now, they have shifted their role to some new ones.
When asked a few years ago to decide whether the Mandate in the ACA law was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an astonishing decision that (a) the mandate was clearly unconstitutional since it penalized people for NOT buying something, (b) if the law had taxed them instead of penalizing them then it would be "barely acceptable" since Congress does have the power to tax, and (c) Roberts would now rewrite the law, removing the word "penalty" wherever it occurred (it was in the law in 17 places) and replacing it with "tax". He then declared the newly-written law constitutional and binding, despite its never having been passed in that form by Congress nor signed by the President.
In doing so, he ignored the fact that the Congress that passed the original ACA, never would have passed it in its new form. A number of Democrat congressmen had gone on the record declaring they would not vote for it if it contained any new taxes. And the leftist fanatics who wrote it, spent weeks assuring them that it did not contain any new taxes at all, only penalties, and that's why those congressmen should vote for it. So it passed by a one-vote margin.
The ink was barely dry before those same leftist fanatics were sending briefs to the Supreme Court, insisting that the law contained no penalties at all, only taxes. (In his novel "1984", George Orwell sardonically referred to this kind of complete reversal, as "doublethink".)
Chief Justice Roberts then announced a new purpose for the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law as written and upholding the Constitution, he now stated that the Court's new function, was to do whatever Congress wanted. If the law was constitutional as written, fine. If it wasn't, the Court would rewrite it, making whatever changes were needed so they could declare it "constitutional". And they would NOT ask Congress to vote on it in its new form, despite the Constitutional requirement that they do so.
And now they have done the same thing again, ironically to the same law (only a different part of it).
The law as written, says that states would get Federal subsidies if they set up their own exchanges. Roberts seems to have decided that they really meant that ALL states would get Federal subsidies. Despite the architects of the law publicly announcing that that was not its intent at all. They wrote it that way to force states to set up their own exchanges, by deliberately withholding funds from those that didn't.
So Roberts decided to change the law again, and proclaim that it now said that all states would get subsidies, despite its clear wording to the contrary. And, of course, the Congress would not be asked to vote on the law in its new form, despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.
There seems to be no point in our having a Congress any more. Or a Constitution, that lists requirements for making laws. Both are being freely ignored nowadays, by a Court that has decided it knows what they "really wanted" (never mind that the Congressmen themselves have declared otherwise), and that has decided it has the power to rewrite laws without sending them back to Congress for re-approval.
Obama isn't the only one with a pen and a phone. With a Court like this behind him legislating from the bench, he needs nothing more. And he especially doesn't need some pesky elected Congress that won't fall in line and obey his dictates.
He and his minions (on and off the bench) merely need to announce that Congress didn't really mean the laws they passed. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.
Orwell was right. He was merely 30-odd years early.
---------------------------------------
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8845449/scalia-dissent-obamacare-scotuscare
Justice Scalia: Don't call it Obamacare, call it SCOTUScare
Updated by Dara Lind on June 25, 2015, 10:33 a.m. ET
The Supreme Court just upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act in the case King v. Burwell , allowing 6.4 million people to keep tax subsidies they were getting to buy health insurance on the federal exchange on Healthcare.gov. Justice Antonin Scalia is pissed. The dissent he wrote in the case includes the line:
We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
In case you think we're making this up, here it is in the text of the dissent:
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Ei98UQZu8sf7PJEXGQoj-TiSgUU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3822746/Screen_Shot_2015-06-25_at_10.17.04_AM.0.png
(Supreme Court of the United States)
The dissent also includes the phrase "interpretive jiggery-pokery," and describes one of the arguments in Chief Justice Roberts's majority decision upholding the law as "pure applesauce."