Supreme Court with “no semblance of shame” — Justice Scalia

“. . . 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.”  Justice Scalia.

With the compass of “justice & reason” and a career dedicated to upholding our Constitution and the rule of law; even still, I held hope a majority of 9 individuals would retreat from their course of action to ignore 200+ years of concrete, black and white, ‘rule of law’ and begin the arduous journey to repair the credibility of what was the most respected institution for Justice in the world.

Alexander Hamilton explained in support for adoption of our Constitution:

“According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

. . .

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”      Federalist #78

I urge you to read all of Professor Jacobson’s explanation at Legal Insurrection in today’s post here which I am simply going to copy from below:

I insert Legal Insurrection’s short video where “the architect of Obamacare” explains the law was purposely designed and written to FORCE the States to create their own exchanges for their citizens:

Now I paste Professor Jacobson’s highlights of Justice Scalia’s, Thomas, and Alito’s explanation of what 6 politicians with lifetime appointments have done today:

Scalia’s dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, was stinging, and in my opinion correct as to the absurdity of the Court contorting itself to save the law (as Roberts did in the original Obamacare challenge):

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.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so. [at 1]”

Scalia points out that the words have a plain meaning:

“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. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” …. [at 2, italics in original]”

Scalia argued — persuasively — that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language:

“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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. [at 2-3]

Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law “with no semblance of shame”:

“The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [at 3]”

Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare:

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).

The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. [at 20-21, emphasis and hard paragraph breaks added.]

The legacy of this Court, Scalia wrote, will live on just as Obamacare, but in infamy:

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. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. 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.

I dissent.

May G-d bless and keep safe, the dream of America, her supporters with the spirit of liberty and justice for all in their hearts.

texas

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Supreme Court with “no semblance of shame” — Justice Scalia

  1. With respect, Texas, Scalia got it wrong. This ruling does not mean the Court favors some laws over others. This ruling means the Court thinks the law is whatever it WANTS the law to be.

    What we have just witnessed is the final birth of the Progressive’s ultimate dream: an elected dictatorship in the model of that described by Woodrow Wilson.

    • MIGHT over RIGHT. The Rule of “man” set loose upon “the People”; “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

    • Texas and “Old Black Joe actual”,

      A caller to Rush today…. “called” it…. We now have Statutory Law and, when the Supreme Court rules that Gay marriage is the preferred coupling reference, Common Law as well….. BOTH over turned.

      And the State will now decide what is legal at whim…backed up by government guns. There is effectively NO LAW in America any more. This is the essence of Obama’s rule, the complicity of the GOP and the “activism” of the Supreme Court.

      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/25/caller_we_no_longer_have_the_rule_of_law

      • DonAmeche,

        It is exactly what Woodrow Wilson wanted: an elected dictatorship. But we should not fool ourselves anymore, it is a dictatorship. Obama threatened SCOTUS and SCOTUS gave him what he demanded. They even turned the world on its head to do so. We ARE living in Biblical times!

  2. Texas,

    SCOTUS has now declared the Federal Goverment is the “State”. Constitutional law is now adrift and there is no rope to grab onto.

    In my opinion, to show there distaste and set an example for the rest of us, Scalia, Alito and Thomas should tender there resignations. If this is what the U.S. Citizen wants then give them what they want.

    Further, every politician that is a true patriot should leave Washington immediately and tender their resignation.

    We will separate or die on the field of battle.

    This is written in support of American Citizens not prepared to cowtow to the filth that now dominates our government.

    I am afraid there is no longer a peaceful solution. Biblical prophecy told us this was going to happen.

    • Chelo,
      Evil removes its shroud. Evil will now boast. More “naysayers” and “fence sitters” who have been defrauded will awaken to reality. Never before has evil attempted to destroy a large group of righteous.

      Liberty and truth is in America’s DNA; the peoples who fled their original societies to follow their dreams for a better future for their progeny and truly live.

      Evil has attempted to raise a new army of new slaves to support them, but they will fail, as a majority who fled the corrupt for something better, will in their own hearts realize, there is no other place to flee too.

      This is a nation of “freemen”, not “slaves.” Slaves will not die for others’ dreams of conquest while freemen will die for their progeny’s liberty.

      • The Ruling of SCOTUS in favor of *Disparate Impact* moves the Federal Government and HUD DIRECTLY into everyone’s neighborhood. And ultimately into everyone’s very home.

        The right of association is now basically a criminal offense. Without strong and vertical as well as horizontal Organization…… the Conquest of “Freemen” will be realized very soon. The lesson of 1776 is ORGANIZATION and Vocal Demands ( The Declaration and Common Sense etc ).

  3. For those following the Circus of Clowns running for the Republican nomination…..especially the RINO contestants.

    Jeb Bush has been shown to be PRO-ObamaCare. Perhaps some don’t know but he is/was on the Board of Directors of Tenet HealthCare, which is a HUGE beneficiary of ObamaCare money. From the Taxpayer direct into the Bush family coffers.

    Here is a List of the Major Hospital Corps ( and Ins Corps) AFTER the Roberts Court re-wrote (yet again) the ACA. Notice that Tenet is one of the Top 4. Jeb Bush is a Crny Capitalist Liberal Republican RINO pure and simple………..selling the country out.

    http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/HCA,THC,CYH,UHS

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s