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

Obamacare’s Supreme Savior, ‘The Incredible’ John Roberts – America’s Official Mind Reader

For a second time, Chief Justice John Roberts has saved Obamacare. Or, should I say, the “The Incredible, The Amazing, The Astounding, The Extraordinary, The Extrasensory” Mr. Roberts has once again done something absolutely astonishing — he has read the minds of the members of Congress who rammed through The Affordable Care Act to ascertain just what they must have meant when they wrote the bill…even though that’s not what they actually said or put on paper.

Authoring the majority opinion that upheld the health law’s key provision of paying tax subsidies to enrollees in all states, Roberts The Magnificent said that Congress couldn’t have intended to pick and choose among the states. No, no, no, those benevolent, well-intentioned, we-know-what’s-best lawmakers couldn’t have meant what they specifically said — that only Obamacare signups accomplished through the state exchanges would be eligible for subsidies to help pay those exorbitant insurance premiums. No, no, no, Congress couldn’t have been that careless or reckless or ignorant of the consequences of saying that enrollees through the federal marketplace wouldn’t qualify for Uncle Sam’s financial aid.

So, with Chief Justice Roberts now putting on the gilded trappings of Chief Mind Reader Roberts, America takes another giant step toward becoming a land of feelings and intentions rather than facts and the law. All hail, Roberts The Awesome.

In an article on today’s 6-3 high court decision that all Obamacare customers are allowed to get subsidies if they qualify, The Washington Times points out: “The law says subsidies should be paid to customers of exchanges ‘established by the state,’ but the chief justice, writing in the 6-3 ruling, said even states that don’t establish an exchange and rely instead on the federal marketplace can receive subsidies.”

In the lengthy majority opinion that he penned, The Amazing Mr. Roberts said that it simply couldn’t have been the intent of those brilliant minds on Capitol Hill or the genius in the White House to pick and choose who would and would not get those controversial subsidies. It just couldn’t, because that would destroy the fundamental economics of the law. As The Washington Times notes, Roberts contends that “couldn’t have been the intention of those who wrote the law” because that would have killed Obamacare…which Roberts The Seer, Roberts The Sage, Roberts The All-Knowing clearly could not allow to happen.

Quoting from the Chief Justice’s explanation of the majority opinion that once more saves the president’s bacon: “The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a state’s individual insurance market into a death spiral.”

And surely, certainly, without a doubt — according to Roberts The Magnificent — all those lawyers and economists and statisticians who concocted Obamacare couldn’t have screwed up so badly that they would send the whole kit and kaboodle down the toilet of harsh reality and unforgiving economics. Or, heaven forbid, it simply could not be that the lawmakers who rushed the bill through a sharply divided Congress didn’t care whether the law worked or not.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the court’s dissenting opinion, was unabashed in his scathing criticism of Roberts and the “interpretive jiggery-pokery” that went into the majority decision whose contorted assumptions and mind-reading salvation rescued Barack Obama’s legacy.

The Times excerpted this razor-edged gem from Scalia’s dissent: “’We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,’ Justice Scalia wrote. ‘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 favorite.’”

Scalia went on to write on behalf of dissenters Alito and Thomas that, with Roberts’ new rules of redemption and resuscitation, “words no longer have meaning.”

But with his hocus-pocus judicial reach far into the ethers to magically produce the wisps of intent that he used to weave together another Obamacare rescue, The Extrasensory John Roberts would seem to be the perfect medium to deliver the message in the age of Obama. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has now transformed himself in this era when his president envisions fundamental transformation for the nation… transformed himself into The Oracle.

With this fantastic feat of marble-column mind reading, John Roberts has now become the priest in the shrine, the oracle on the mount, the conjurer who — rather than pulling rabbits out of hats — pulls Obama out of the fire that threatened to blacken his presidency. No pun intended.

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

BREAKING: Supreme Court Has Issued Its Landmark Ruling On Obamacare Subsidies

Despite specific language in the law stating that only health care insurance exchanges “established by the state” would be allowed to offer Obamacare enrollees subsidies or tax credits to help lower their premiums, the U.S. Supreme Court today affirmed that 6.4 million people who have signed up through the federal marketplace can continue to receive subsidies.

The high court’s 6-3 decision is a major victory for the Obama administration. The Hill reports that Chief Justice John Roberts — who was widely criticized by conservatives for his previous determination that Obamacare was constitutional — authored the decision.

“In his decision, Roberts argued that a ruling killing off the subsidies would set the state markets into a death spiral, and that this could not have been the intent of Congress.

“‘The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner,’ he wrote.”

The case before the court, King v. Burwell — the second major challenge to the president’s signature legislative achievement — represented the biggest legal threat to Obamacare since the Supreme Court ruled the law was constitutional three years ago.

Western Journalism will post further details on the Supreme Court decision — as well as reaction to the administration’s big win — as they become available throughout the day.

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