Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution give ALL legislative powers to the Congress. This was such an important principle to our wise Founding Fathers that they placed this crucial part of our system upfront and center for all to view.
Never was it ever imagined that unelected, lifetime appointed judges would have the power to change laws passed by the people’s representatives.
Yet again, the Supreme Court of the United States has usurped congressional authority to make and change laws by adjusting Obamacare to please Obama.
In 2012, chief Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said:
“If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits … I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”
Even so, in King v. Burwell, The Supreme Court ruled that tax subsidies can go to individuals who purchase healthcare insurance on the federal exchange, even though only those registered in state exchanges are eligible per the law itself.
Much like in 2012, where the SCOTUS ruled that the government somehow has constitutional power to force Americans to buy certain things that Democrats think they must be forced to purchase, in a 6-3 decision on Thursday, the court ruled that those on federal exchanges would in fact be eligible for subsidies even though the law itself disallows those very subsidies.
Again, treasonous Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, unlawfully voted with his progressive colleagues in support of Obamacare, as did Anthony Kennedy, a wolf in sheep’s clothing appointed by the late Ronald Reagan.
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion. “It rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.”
Like the previous decision, Scalia said the courts used “somersaults of statutory interpretation,” and that the “discouraging truth” is that the Supreme Court favors some laws over others in their rulings:
“The somersaults of statutory interpretation they [SCOTUS] have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [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.”
Additionally, Scalia wrote that twisting the words of an insurance exchange “by the state” to one set up by the federal government is “nonsense.”
“Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is ‘established by the state,'” Scalia wrote.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott a leader in bringing together a coalition of 27 states suing over Obamacare, said that the SCOTUS had “abandoned the Constitution to resuscitate a failing healthcare law.”
“The Supreme Court abandoned the Constitution to resuscitate a failing healthcare law. Today’s action underscores why it is now more important than ever to ensure we elect a President who will repeal Obamacare and enact real healthcare reforms.”
Along with Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also voted in favor of of the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and separation of powers.