Ted Cruz Has An EPIC Message For ‘Rogue’ Supreme Court Justices

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did not hold back in expressing what he thinks about the Supreme Court’s two most controversial decisions in recent memory.

Cruz told radio talk show host Sean Hannity: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”

“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz went on. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”

“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

“If those justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office,” Cruz reprimanded. “That’s the appropriate place to write laws — on this floor, not that courtroom.”

Cruz took to the Senate floor yesterday to express his profound disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Obamacare subsidies paid through the federal exchange.

“These rogue Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an exchange ‘established by the state.’ This is lawless,” the senator asserted.

He quoted Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in the dissent that “Words no longer have meaning” and that the law should be referred to as “SCOTUScare” because of the Supreme Court’s commitment to saving it using “somersaults” of statutory interpretation.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators and bad ones at that,” said Cruz. “They are lawless, and they hide the prevarication in legalise. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not men.”

The senator then used the same metaphor Chief Justice John Roberts (author of yesterday’s Obamacare majority opinion) employed during his 2005 confirmation hearing to define the role of those who sit on the high court. “These justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes,” said Cruz. “They have joined a team, and it’s a team that is hurting Americans across this country.”

Roberts said in his opening statement at his confirmation hearing: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them…And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Both Cruz and Roberts began their legal careers serving as clerks on the Supreme Court for the conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a decade apart. Perhaps, Cruz invoked the memory of their former boss to highlight that Roberts had strayed from the beliefs about the rule of law and role of the court for which Rehnquist stood (though the former Chief Justice would have likely approved of Roberts’ stance regarding whether the court should redefine marriage. For those supporters of same-sex marriage, Roberts wrote “…celebrate today’s decision…but do not celebrate the Constitution. It has nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”)

“If Chief Justice Rehnquist could see this court today,” said Cruz, “he would be filled with sorrow at what has become of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The candidate then shifted his focus to what is next. “It is now up to us, to keep our promise,” he said. “I believe 2016 will be a national referendum on repealing Obamacare….I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of [it].”

h/t: Daily Caller and The Politistick

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Supreme Court Is NOT The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution

SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution; the STATES hold that power. How does it make any sense that one part of the federal government holds the authority to determine the power of the whole?

It makes no sense; and as a matter of fact, James Madison told us that in no uncertain terms:

“…that the ultimate right of the States, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800

However, that is exactly what has happened with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell. It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic–and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress. Interestingly, all you need to know about the King v. Burwell decision is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion. Consider these words:

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”  (emphasis mine)

IF we were a democracy, as Roberts is asserting, this opinion would be absolutely correct–Obamacare would result from an absolutely lawful use of federal power, and we would have no real argument to make. However, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In a Constitutional Republic, the Legislature is NOT unlimited in its power and authority. Article 6, clause 2, The Supremacy Clause, makes it perfectly clear that there is a hierarchy to the federal system and that the Legislature is NOT on top; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

When Roberts says, “But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done,” he is asserting that whenever the Legislature makes a law, we are bound by it without question. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Supremacy Clause, we have an obligation to undo what Congress has done if what they are doing is not “made in pursuance” to the Constitution.

Additionally, if the “Laws of the United States” are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, then they cannot legally exist. To allow Legislative Acts contrary to the Constitution to remain law would elevate the Congress ABOVE the Constitution, destroying the Constitution itself and transmuting the nature of our Republic into an Oligarchy.

There is no specific enumeration in the Constitution for the federal government to provide healthcare to the States or the people. There is only errant interpretation of clauses to justify such an exercise of power.

Because there is no specific enumeration for healthcare, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that healthcare is not a power to be exercised by the federal government.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (emphasis mine)

But what does Roberts use to justify this federal encroachment? Not a clause from the Constitution, but an opinion by the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison. How convenient that the Supreme Court can write opinions that declare themselves the ultimate rulers of the universe and then be allowed to credibly use those opinions to justify their emperor-like behavior! Ironically, the most important role of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the Congress acts within its Constitutional limitations. But since it is ridiculous to believe that any entity of power would act on its own to limit itself, our framers didn’t trust these federal employees with that task. They trusted the States.

Madison declares in 1789 that the STATES are to be the ultimate control against the expansion of federal power, the greatest opponents to the federal government necessary to preserve the Liberty of the people:

“The State legislatures will…be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.” House of Representatives 1789 (emphasis mine)

But, when the States REFUSE to live up to their obligations and allow any branch of the federal government to expand power and limit the people and the States, they are simply declaring that they believe we are not a Constitutional Republic, but instead a Federal Kingdom built of 50 colonies subject to the whim of the feds.

Justice Roberts told the States in the original PPAC opinion:

“We look to the States to defend the their prerogatives by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The States are SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis mine)

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the federal government is limited by specifically enumerated powers. It is time for the States to ACT like States, instead of cowering like colonies. It is time for the States to fulfill their obligation to be the SURE GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES’ LIBERTIES.

It is time to dethrone the Supreme Court. It is time to STAND for the Constitutional Republic and defy this theft of State Power and destruction of the Constitution.

Healthcare is NOT a specifically enumerated power delegated to the federal government. The exercise of that power is therefore contrary to the Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause, any law by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution is NOT the law of the land. That makes the law null-and-void of any force. Since the Affordable Care Act is NO LAW AT ALL, when we REFUSE TO COMPLY we are not breaking the law…we are enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land, defending our Republic, and guarding our Liberty!

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

Watch: Stunned Judge Napolitano Reveals How Supreme Court Just Pulled The Wool Over America’s Eyes

Judge Andrew Napolitano believes Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion in King v. Burwell engaged in “bizarre and odd contortions” to reach its decision.

“My immediate reaction is that the chief justice has yet again resorted to a nearly unheard of construction in order to save the statute,” Fox News’ senior judicial analyst told Bill Hemmer.

He noted that Roberts has now saved the law twice, first ruling in favor of its constitutionality and now in re-interpreting the plain language of the statute. “Last time around when the government said it was not a tax and the challengers said it was not a tax, the chief justice ruled it was a tax and that saved it,” the judge said.

“This time around he took the plain meaning of ordinary words, ‘established by the states,’ and somehow held that they were ambiguous, and that he could — and that that the majority could — correct the ambiguity according to what they thought the drafters meant.”

“The court is now in the business of saving a statute in order to save its reputation,” Napolitano said, sharing the view Justice Antonin Scalia put forward in his dissent.

Napolitano found Scalia’s dissent–joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas–to be “as compelling and stinging as any dissent as I have seen.”

Scalia writes of the majority’s opinion: “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

“The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers,” he posits.

Roberts, who was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer, ruled in favor of the subsidies being available to those who purchase insurance through the federal health exchange. In his opinion, the chief justice relied heavily on the overall intent of the law and the negative impact ruling against the subsidies would have.

Scalia, in turn, relied on the plain meaning of the words “established by the State” regarding Congress’ apparent plan to get the states to participate in the Affordable Care Act.

Roberts concludes: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Scalia instead finds the majority engaged in “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to save the law. “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,” he adds.

“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges,” Scalia argues.

Going forward, the originalist jurist believes these 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.”

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Rush Thinks He’s Found The Real Reason The Supreme Court Let Obamacare Slide — And It’s Sinister

Fresh off of a seemingly clairvoyant prediction that the ongoing controversy surrounding the Confederate flag would spread to a denouncement of the American flag, radio host Rush Limbaugh this week made a bold assertion regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding ObamaCare. The 6-3 vote upheld the use of federal tax subsidies in assisting poor Americans in need of health insurance.

Expressing his disappointment with Chief Justice John Roberts over his decision to side with the Obama administration, Limbaugh determined the generally conservative justice was influenced by outside forces. Thursday’s decision was the second in which Roberts voted with the majority to protect the largely unpopular federal healthcare law.

The venerable host prefaced his analysis by insisting that he is “not accusing anybody” of wrongdoing, going on to explain that surrounding details seem to suggest Roberts is influenced by money. Building on reports that show shares of healthcare-related stocks jumped in the wake of the high court’s ruling, Limbaugh hypothesized that this was the result Roberts might have been pursuing.

He continued by suggesting that “when you follow the money, a lot of questions that seem unanswerable become clear.”

Reader comments on leftist sites like Media Matters were predictably upset by Limbaugh’s monologue. The pithy retorts scribed below an article on that site included one critic’s assertion that those in the conservative media realm “are real morons.”

Within the social media realm, however, reaction was more balanced as many Obamacare opponents shared Limbaugh’s incredulous take on Roberts’ vote.

Capture

Did Chief Justice Roberts base his vote on an interpretation of the Constitution or some outside force? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Infuriated Supreme Court Justice Reveals Perfect New 1-Word Name For Obamacare

Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 King v. Burwell decision, did not hold back taking Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion to task for failing to follow the plain language of the law and the Constitution.

Scalia noted: “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.”

As reported by Western Journalism, President Barack Obama made a very similar statement a few weeks ago–from the entirely opposite perspective, however. Some felt the president was trying to pressure the court to decide his way when he said that the court’s decision is “not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, and so I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight, when it comes to the interpretation. This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

Justice Scalia believes the majority in fact did twist the meaning of the four words in question–“established by the State”–to get its desired outcome of upholding the payment of subsidies through the federal healthcare exchange.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” Scalia writes.

He continues: “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.”

Scalia offers that: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” given the extraordinary measures taken by the high court on the law’s behalf.

[T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act–[upholding the constitutionality of the law and the payment of subsidies through the federal exchange]–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 it prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano stood firmly by Scalia’s scathing analysis.

Appearing on Outnumbered, he took note that Justice Roberts, in both major Obamacare cases, “used novel arguments that were not even advanced in the briefs or the oral arguments before the court.”

In 2012’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, neither the government nor the plaintiffs argued the penalties created by the law were a tax; but Roberts wrote in his opinion that it was a tax–therefore, a power that Congress has under the Constitution.

In King v. Burwell, neither side argued that the language in the statute was “ambiguous”; but Roberts wrote that it was, finding it a case of “inartful drafting.”

Justice Scalia posits that even if Roberts is correct that Congress made a mistake, “This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”

He believes that “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in his dissent.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth