to call attention to this Court’s threat to American
democracy.
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s willingness to make stuff up, Obamacare has been saved once again. In order to save Obamacare from utter disaster, Chief Justice Roberts essentially rewrote the law.
If you are thinking that the Supreme Court is not supposed to do that, you would be right. But this is what our judicial system has devolved into. When I was in law school, I was horrified to discover that most judges in our country just do whatever they feel like doing. Instead of applying the law to the facts and coming to a fair and unbiased judgment, most judges in America just do whatever they want to do and then search for some law or case precedent that they can use to justify their decision. If there is no law or case precedent, some federal judges even go outside of the country to find justification for their absolutely ridiculous rulings. There have been instances where international law or international standards of morality have been cited as authority for a decision in a federal case. We have become a lawless land where the letter of the law no longer holds any real meaning, and where tyrannical judges just make stuff up out of thin air in order to advance their own personal political agendas.This decision on Obamacare should have been quite straightforward for the court. The following is how Business Insider described the key issue in this case…
The case revolved around the interpretation of a phrase that stated that healthcare exchanges must be “established by the State” in order to receive tax credits. Scalia said that he was baffled that the majority of the justices could interpret this to mean that the federal government could give tax credits in states where exchanges weren’t established by the state.
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State,’” Scalia said.
That sounds pretty basic, right?
“Established by the state” should mean “established by the state”?
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia excoriated the court for discarding all usual rules of interpretation in order to preserve Obamacare…
The United States no longer has, as the Constitution designed, a government composed of executive, legislative and judicial branches, separate, but equal in power.
The federal government is now an alliance of branches, devoted to the preservation of government itself, separate, not from each other, but from the American people and dedicated to tyranny.The policies pursued by the Obama Administration and facilitated by cowardly politicians and a compliant media are not simply the intersection of radical ideology and incompetence, but a dangerous subversive element of an anti-American and anti-Western strategy.
Cultural Marxism and its many variants, such as political correctness and multiculturalism, is now firmly ensconced in the White House and the Democrat Party, while the Republican Party, dominated by eunuchs and the avaricious, continuously accommodates its "principles" to match an ever-shifting leftward movement of the "conventional wisdom." It does so solely in to maintain its place as the token opposition and grifter at the federal tax-revenue trough for the personal financial benefits that it provides.
After the successful 1917 communist revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that a proletarian revolt would sweep across Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not.
As a result, the Communist International began to investigate other ways to create the state of societal hopelessness and alienation necessary as a prerequisite for socialist revolution - in essence, to destroy western democracy from within.
Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”
Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.
In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.
QOTD: "...when [Chief Justice John Roberts] did his previous pretzel ruling [on the first Obamacare decision] ... [he] eventually decided it was perfectly lawful to force every single American to purchase a product from a nominally private company.
And we were told that he did that because the toxicity of the decision to strike that down would damage the Court's reputation. So now again, with a care for the Court's reputation, he's twisted himself into a pretzel again. Presumably the same considerations will apply when it comes to same sex marriage.
In that case, there is no point to a Supreme Court. If they can't take the heat of decisions that go against the zeitgeist or the popular mood or whatever fancies and foibles are in the air, then there is no point to a constitutional court. If he's saying we can't take the heat, fine. Then let the legislators who have to account to the citizens, let them take the heat. What polling booth do you go to to vote out John Roberts? What polling booth do you go to to vote out Anthony Kennedy? Scalia's line is not a joke. It is SCOTUSCare...
The judicial branch is in effect now actually legislating and broadening the terms of the law. And that is something that ought to be extremely disturbing to anyone, particularly a constitutional court, but to anyone who gives any thought as to whether we're a land of laws or a land of men." --Mark Steyn
Things are now snowballing and it is more than most Americans can take or bear. From gay marriage and the ensuing infringement on free speech and our religious rights, to enforced Obamacare, to forced wealth redistibution in our neighborhoods, to the EPA run amok… our freedoms are being absolutely nullified. States are now saying they won’t comply with the EPA on coal and who can blame them? Americans will get very dangerous when they are hungry and cold. And then there is the Iran deadline, which is this weekend. Instead of holding their feet to fire, we are actually giving Iran nuclear reactors while they shout, “Death to America!” in their parliament.
Insanity is the norm now.
This was a great response on Facebook right after the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.
Roberts zeroes in on where the next big game is. You & I both know this is coming. pic.twitter.com/aCJBzBWdEO
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 26, 2015
I can’t wait to force the local mosque to marry gay couples. — Bob Owens (@bob_owens) June 26, 2015
The gay marriage “gotcha” question for Republican debates will now become “Would you attend a church that performs a legal gay marriage?"
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) June 26, 2015
Within a few years tax exempt status will be stripped from churches. Charitable giving will dip. More govt will move in to fill in the gap.
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) June 26, 2015
Talk show icon Rush Limbaugh warned on Tuesday that the Confederate flag kerfuffle is bout the opening salvo in a campaign that that will eventually set its sights on that ultimate symbol of hate to the American left – the U.S. flag. Rush warned:
“If you take a look at the timeline of progressive events, their speed and rapidity with which the left is conducting this assault on all of these American traditions and institutions, if you don’t think the American flag’s in their crosshairs down the road, you had better stop and reconsider,” Limbaugh said.
The U.S. flag was already in liberal crosshairs when a group of American high school students in California made the mistake of wearing it on their t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:
On Sept. 17, more than four years after Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., sent students home for wearing American flag t-shirts, an 11-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that it was the right choice, "tailored to avert violence and focused on student safety."
The decision upheld the court's three-judge ruling in February that justified the school's actions based on tensions between Mexican and American students. Past events, Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote, "made it reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real."
QOTD: "The biggest loser [on the trade bill], though, is Hillary Clinton. Once the TPP and TPA became a toxic issue with progressives, Hillary ran for cover despite spending three years of her term as Secretary of State extolling the deal. Jake Tapper found [45] separate occasions where Hillary endorsed TPP as US policy while at State, but it didn’t end there. Her memoir Hard Choices, published in 2014 a year after she left State, has only one substantive passage on TPP, but it’s significant:
[In it], Hillary called TPP “the signature economic pillar of our strategy in Asia,” and “benefit American businesses and workers.” And she should know — Hillary was in charge of American diplomacy while this agreement was being negotiated...
...Either way, Hillary looks gutless and pandering — demonstrating the antithesis of leadership. In a crowded field, that makes her the biggest loser on TPA." --Ed Morrissey
Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz attacked Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the Supreme Court in unusually harsh terms Thursday, referring to them as "rogue justices" and "robed Houdinis" after a 6-3 decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law.
Cruz, a Texas senator, did not mention any current high court members by name in remarks on the Senate floor. But his speech included a thinly veiled reference to Roberts, part of the court majority that upheld tax credits that defray the cost of coverage for lower-income individuals nationwide.
"These justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes. They have joined a team," the Texas lawmaker said.
Chief Justice John Roberts today joined Anthony Kennedy and all the Supreme Court Democrats in upholding Obama’s unconstitutional, deceptive, and indescribably destructive healthcare law. Today’s decision in King v. Burwell declares that even though the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) specifically required individuals to enroll through state exchanges to obtain subsidies, enrolling directly through the federal government is essentially the same thing. This decision once again displays the Supreme Court’s willingness to ignore the clear intent of law in order to achieve a politically desired result. For Roberts it has written into stone an unmistakable pattern.
Roberts’ first betrayal was his mind-bending decision to call Obamacare a legitimate tax, whereas Obama had defended the law on the basis that it wasn’t a tax. An article in Republic magazine aptly described Roberts’ first betrayal:‘Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,’ wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we’ve seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
His next was almost certainly throwing in with the Court’s leftists on gay rights – ignoring the clear state’s rights issue involved by voting not to hear five cases that defended traditional marriage as a state’s right. “Almost certainly” because a decision to hear the cases required only four in agreement and votes are taken in secret. Scalia, Thomas and Alito were likely willing to hear the cases. Where was the fourth vote?
Now Roberts has done all possible to seal this country’s fate by once again siding with Obama. In today’s decision, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of its mind-numbing idiocy (see pp. 27 – 29):
Oversight Cmte hearing on Lois Lerner email inquiry expected to reveal there was destruction evidence 10 months after a preservation order for the emails was in place... On today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on the IRS and the state of the Lois Lerner email investigation from a source knowledgeable with the matter.
Fox is told the hearing will definitively state there was a destruction of evidence 10 months after a preservation order for the emails was in place, 7 months after a subpoena was in place and 30 days AFTER the IRS realized there were potential problems locating the emails. This destruction of evidence happened 22 days BEFORE the IRS Commissioner testified to Congress, in response to my questioning on March 26, 2015, that they had the documents and they would provide all of them to Congress.
In June they informed the Senate they were missing.
Further, the IG is expected to conclusively testify 5 of the 6 potential places where the emails might have been stored were never looked at by the IRS, despite the preservation order, congressional testimony, subpoena, etc.
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers.
If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!
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 ...
... 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.
QOTD: "[The still secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)] will be a "living agreement," and that means that the entity itself, the commission, will then be entitled to make it say different things.
Eliminate provisions it doesn't like, add provisions it does like...
It is a breathtaking event. It says it is "to promote the international movement of people, services and products," basically the same language used to start the European Union.
In fact I have referred to it as a nascent European Union. I don't think that is far off base...
What about this "union," what kind of powers are we talking about? I am of the belief that since the president hasn't been a strong advocate of trade, and his supporters, many of them oppose this kind of a trade agreement, I'm beginning to believe that the primary part of his understanding of the importance of this legislation -- why he is breaking arms and heads over it -- is this union. This international commission that has powers that he believes will allow him to advance agendas." --Sen. Jeff Sessions
Senator Jeff Sessions will release this statement in response to Senate's vote to advance the fast-track trade bill:
Americans increasingly believe that their country isn’t serving its own citizens. They need look no further than a bipartisan vote of Congress that will transfer congressional power to the Executive Branch and, in turn, to a transnational Pacific Union and the global interests who will help write its rules.The same routine plays out over and again. We are told a massive bill must be passed, all the business lobbyists and leaders tell how grand it will be, but that it must be rushed through before the voters spoil the plan. As with Obamacare and the Gang of Eight, the politicians meet with the consultants to craft the talking points—not based on what the bill actually does, but what they hope people will believe it does. And when ordinary Americans who never asked for the plan, who don’t want the plan, who want no part of the plan, resist, they are scorned, mocked, and heaped with condescension.
Washington broke arms and heads to get that 60th vote—not one to spare—to impose on the American people a plan which imperils their jobs, wages, and control over their own affairs. It is remarkable that so much energy has been expended on advancing the things Americans oppose, and preventing the things Americans want.
For instance: thousands of loyal Americans have been laid off and forced to train the foreign workers brought in to fill their jobs—at Disney, at Southern California Edison, across the country. Does Washington rush to their defense? No, the politicians and the lobbyists rush to move legislation that would double or triple the very program responsible for replacing them.
This ‘econometarian’ ideology holds that if a company can increase its bottom line - whether by insourcing foreign workers or outsourcing production - then it’s always a win, never a downside.
By way of example, here is Keith Tucker's explanation of just one aspect of the idiocy.
The numbers indicate that a vast majority of gun owners have not complied with the law which was hastily enacted in 2013 after the Newtown massacre.
Second Amendment advocates had contended that state police were not releasing registration numbers to avoid embarrassment for the administration by hiding the low rate of compliance from angry gun owners.
While the motivation behind keeping the numbers from public view are up for debate, the results are not – hundreds of thousands of gun owners have collectively told Governor Cuomo to take his gun-grabbing law and shove it.
QOTD: "While the pontiff sanctimoniously attacks [air-conditioning and] “those who are obsessed with maximizing profits,” Carrier Corporation — a $13 billion for-profit company with 43,000 employees worldwide (now a unit of U.S.-based United Technologies Corp.) — ensures that the air in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel stays clean and cool.
Last fall, Carrier unveiled a groundbreaking HVAC system for the Vatican to help preserve Michelangelo’s masterpieces against pollution caused by the estimated six million visitors who descend on the Sistine Chapel every year to see its famous frescoes." --Michelle Malkin
“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” said Clinton...
The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium — the stuff used to build nuclear weapons — to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?
Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.
QOTD: "Let us face elemental reality. A 40-million person California is an iffy place. It is entirely dependent on a sophisticated, man-created infrastructure of dams, reservoirs, canals, pumps, freeways, rail lines, airports, and schools and universities. Given that the population continues to rise, and given that one in four Californians was not born in the United States and is often poor (California has the largest population in real and relative numbers below the poverty line; one sixth of the nation on welfare payments of some sort lives in California), there is no margin of safety. A drought is but a metaphor about the collapse of an entire way of living...
If our biologists and environmentalist were honest folk, they would have said to the public, “Please do not come into California; we instead prefer to restore salmon in our rivers than to provide jobs and drinking water for you. We like looking at open spaces from our backyard decks, not at new housing tracts. And we like a state of the well-heeled in clean-fueled, gas-less Priuses, not the poor puttering around in smoggy used Crown Victorias. The more costly we make gasoline and electrical power, the less we will use of it — even if that hurts you far more than it hurts us.”
But they were not especially veracious sorts, and so they went ahead to turn California into a state fit for 20 million, even as it grew to 40 million — while doing their best to be shielded from the ramifications of their own ideologies. The logical result of the Bay Area grandee’s world view is East Porterville, not the Berkeley foothills. If those who run the state would just live where the poor do, we would have reservoirs galore, futuristic freeways, and affordable housing. If the children of the elite fought for a slot at Cal State Stanislaus rather than Stanford, California would be quite a different place.
If it does not rain or snow soon, we are going to see things unimaginable." --Victor Davis Hanson