The Supreme Court upholds Obamacare Federal Exchange
Today the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on the Obamacare Federal Exchange and by a 6-3 vote upheld it. After the individual mandate was upheld by the same court this is the outcome I expected, however I was curious as to how the Supreme Court would reach its decision.
In order to uphold the individual mandate Chief Justice Roberts redefined the “shared responsibility fee” as a tax even though the Federal Government was arguing it was not a tax and today he released a statement which I found to be stunning!
Here is what he said that I still cannot get over:
“In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
This appears to me to be an admission that the law really does only allow people to receive subsidies through the State Exchanges and not through the Federal Exchange so instead he decided to rely on what he believes the intent of the law was regardless of what it actually says.
Justice Scalia, in his dissent, wrote exactly what I feel about what Chief Justice Roberts wrote when he said the following:
“Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is ‘established by the state.'”
Much like he did with the individual mandate it appears as if Chief Justice Roberts rewrote the law from the bench in order to uphold the Federal Exchange. But if he wanted to look at the intent of the law to justify his position perhaps he should have listened to Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber because he admitted on several occasions the law was specifically written to only provide subsidies at the State level in order to force the States to set up exchanges so their residents would not be ineligible for subsidies.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius and commented:
Supreme Court, sold out America. Nowhere to turn to, for Justice. No recourse, only a DICTATORSHIP.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you!
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It looks like SCOTUS can and will here on out pick and choose what the meaning of is is.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Where is Bill Clinton when you need him…
LikeLike
I believe you are right, Peter!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly so…
LikeLike
With their new ‘reality’ Rove proclaims, along with their new language. Like Alice In Wonderland, “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less …”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Looks like that is the philosophy they are using!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just shows that when the cleanup crew is sent in all 3 Gov. bodies are included, not just the Executive and Legislative. Lot of replacements needed.
One thing about these new law and rules, since they’re not abiding by the Constitution are they legit? If they’re unlawful, then by the higher Law they would be removed. That’s a nice thought!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely, Zip! Our Country wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today if not for the over-reach, Constitutional violations, and outright lawlessness by SCOTUS. Our entire federal government is illegitimate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s right Zip, even SCOTUS is part of the establishment and is on the same side. The separation of powers is gone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It no longer matters what laws are actually written and passed by our legislators. The president will ignore what he wants to ignore, change what he wants to change, and issue EO/EAs when he ‘needs’ to. SCOTUS will sanction those illegal actions and commit a few of their own by ruling that the words used in our laws don’t really mean what they actually mean.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Other than that everything is going swimmingly. 🙂 This is so damned frustrating that I cannot even put it into words!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure you can, Steve…we do here everyday….it IS frustrating, but at least we can vent…maybe we cannot do anything but vent! Every morning I wake up is a new day of wondering what more they can do to us and I am never disappointed in their ways of taking us lower!
LikeLiked by 2 people
This just popped into my head.
IMPEACHMENT!
Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the 6 justices who voted to illegally change the freaking law!! That’s one of the checks and balances in our Constitution.
This ruling is so clearly wrong. It’s not just a matter of ‘interpretation’ or opinion. What they did was outside their authority.
I am so shocked and stunned I’ve become numb. My sister posted on facebook yesterday that she was turning off her laptop for awhile because the world had gone crazy…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laura, impeachment sounds great, but it will never happen. I always had faith that the Supremes would rule “by the book” and not put their spin on it, but we can see even the Supremes are being stacked. Couple that with the Republicans that can be bought and the one swing vote and it speaks disaster for Americans. I once read that Anthony Kennedy was not going to retire until after Obama was out of office, not sure why, because he has voted along with the libs from what I can see. Sotomayor and Kagan were not qualified to be in those positions (my opinion), but from what I can see they were “needed” to vote as they were told and must have been willing to do it and sell themselves out. Sad someone would do that, but hey, they were not afraid of being “fired”…wish I had a job that they could not fire you from.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I know, Lou. Just me being silly. 😉
Congress, themselves, just illegally changed our Constitution, we’ll get no justice from them.
I’m really, scarily, wondering if we have only one ‘box’ left to make our government listen to and obey us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are not alone in the impeachment thinking, Laura!
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/watchdog-lawyer-says-6-supremes-must-be-impeached/
LikeLiked by 1 person
They just bestowed another ‘right’ on us. First they take our Rights away, then they grant new ones.
I actually support SS marriage, but it’s not in the Constitution, therefore, it belongs to the states to decide. States have to honor legal marriages from other states, but they don’t have to allow SS marriage in their state if the people vote against it.
Will clergy and churches now have to perform SS marriages against their beliefs??? This is wrong because the 1st Amendment is Supreme over every judge’s opinion, federal law, and state law.
I think the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laura, read the over 700 replies after the article (or at least some of them to get the general feel) ….there are plenty of pissed off people…not sure what the boiling point is, but I would say we might be reaching it. There is just so much stupidity going on, I just sit and shake my head! If it was not for it being so dangerous to our Republic, I would just walk away from it, but we just do not have that option anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link! 🙂
I read some comments, but I’m on my way to work. The rest will have to wait til tonight. Unfortunately, I have tomorrow off. I will be working myself into a frenzy over the tailspin our Country is in.
I’m seriously contemplating the idea of leaving, but….there’s no place to go! I’m not a quitter, either. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Constitution provides for the impeachment of Federal officers (I think that is the language but I will have to go back and check) but it does not define what constitutes an officer. However a judge has been impeached before so there is precedence and it should be on the table. However nobody in the government has the balls to move forward on this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Article II Section 4
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High crimes and misdemeanors does not mean serious crimes. It means crimes – serious or not – committed by people in high positions. It even includes behavior that wouldn’t be a crime if committed by a private citizen. For elected officials/judges breaking the trust of the People is considered a high crime and misdemeanor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Laura and I agree!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now I just read “In a landmark opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet. (CNN)” What the hell is going on in this world???? Let’s just give the Supremes and ever other court in American a rubber stamp, it would be much easier,,,just do it and get it over with….sold down the river by Obama!!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just saw that, too.
‘Fundamentally transform America’ I’d say he’s done a really good job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With States Rights pretty much in the crapper we are now pretty much completely at the mercy of the Unholy trinity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we have been for awhile, but have not wanted to admit it. We were hoping against hope and now even that is gone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wish I could argue against that but I cannot.
LikeLike