Justice Antonin Scalia coined the term ‘SCOTUScare’ in his dissenting opinion on the King v Burwell case that – by a vote of 6-3 – once again rescued Obamacare from the dustbin reserved for bad laws. Scalia references the obvious fact that the Supreme Court again re-wrote the law in order to save what its majority regard as poorly-executed good intentions. Even the pundits applauding the decision agree.
At issue was whether the law permits the federal government – taxpayers – to subsidize insurance purchased from the federal exchange in states that declined to set up their own exchanges. The law permits subsidies only through “an exchange established by the state.” In backing the government, the Court was forced to ignore the plain language of the statute – and make no bones about it. Chief Justice Roberts stood on the principle that says the court must act to preserve laws passed by Congress whenever they can. He noted the purpose of the law was to “improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” and opined the Court’s duty was to see beyond what the law actually said and do what its guardians meant to do – as though he is better able to divine its meaning than are its authors.
One of its principal authors – MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber – testified before Congress and was videotaped stating that he deliberately framed the statute for state exchanges being necessary for subsidies as a ploy to force every state to set up exchanges. When nearly two thirds of the states thumbed their noses at Gruber and his presidential leash-holder, the leash-holder gave away the tax revenues on his own recognizance. The Court went along with this usurpation of power – just as they did when Roberts declared a penalty was really a tax after Gruber and congressional leaders said repeatedly it was not – in order to declare Obamacare constitutional in 2012. Oh, that principle of preserving law when one is able…
But the principle over the principle is one word – legitimate. When the language of the law is plain, the logical consequence is to rule for the plain language; there is no legitimate way to preserve perversions of law. When the chief executive has clearly exceeded his authority – he has none with which to re-write a law he has re-created some thirty times – the logic is to rule against him, no matter how well-intentioned a judge thinks the effort. That is called constitutional law. What Roberts did is not law at all – it is decree. And the Taney Court employed the very same logic in 1857 when it preserved the Fugitive Slave Law at all costs in the infamous Dred Scott decision that helped precipitate the Civil War.
The Obama Administration argued successfully before the Roberts Court that many American lives would be disrupted – six and one half million – by the sudden cessation of their subsidies if the Court found against the new and improved version of a law never submitted to the sole agency – Congress – with authority to make federal law. But the Court ignores the fact that it is the administration that has made these millions dependent on an illegal program that Congress has the power to repair – should it wish to. It ignores the reality that this administration has disrupted the lives of scores of millions more by triggering massive insurance premium increases, doctor shortages, and lost medical plans with this moronic healthcare law. When something is the colossal failure we have with Obamacare, the solution is to leave the ship and rebuild, not rearrange the deck chairs while John Roberts whistles a happy tune.
Under our Constitution, the Congress is alone entrusted to make federal law. Let them do their job. And let the citizens of this land – especially the Christians and their leaders – rise in tough love to say we gave government its authority–and we can take it back. We will accept the constitutional government that we established; we will neither accept nor tolerate the perversion Obama and Roberts have made of it.
The Word of God says: “For I know the plans I have for you…plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” In other words, we cannot fail to find our God when we seek Him to the exclusion of all others. The “all others” includes Barack Obama, the Congress, and the John Roberts Supreme Court.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth