9 votes

Supreme Court: Supreme Blunder

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare: The June 28 Supreme Court ruling that the “Affordable Care Act”, also known as “Obamacare”, is constitutional flies in the face of our American Republic. I just finished reading through all 59 pages of Justice Robert's Opinion and most of the rest of the 193 pages of this decision. When the Affordable Care Act (herein after referred to as the ACA) was passed, many of us were sure it would be struck down on its blatantly unconstitutional standing. This ruling then comes as a shock to many that still held some hope from the highest court in the land.

Since the vote was so close, 5 to 4, the question needs to be asked who voted which way and why. Most of the votes were predictable from the onset of this challenge. Chief Justice Roberts' vote, however, not only surprised me but has left me disappointed in someone who was widely known to hold conservative views. He was even appointed by our last Republican president. And yet, when it came down to a tie-breaking vote he chose the side of government growing authoritarians. I don't make this statement lightly as I will quote his own words in his recently penned opinion. This is from page 44 Section D, I have added 1,2,3 numerals and highlighting to add emphasis.

Chief Justice Roberts Opines:

D JUSTICE GINSBURG questions the necessity of rejecting the Government's commerce power argument, given that 5000A can be upheld under the taxing power. Post, at 37. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and
1. I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it.
2. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question.
3.And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that 5000A can be interpreted as a tax.
Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.

So here you have it, the debate we all had before ACA passed was commerce clause relevance to unconstitutional mandates. Now, however, the government also argues that if that one fails (which it did earlier in the decision) they will simply treat it as a tax instead. So now the “shared responsibility payment” (how Orwellian) is not a “penalty” as actually stated in Obamacare but a tax. All thanks to... you guessed it, legislative action from the bench. They try to argue that it “behaves like a tax” and so it's not a mandate which is clearly wordsmithing.

I would like to address the concerns regarding numbers 1-3 as noted.

1. Shows that it is obviously unconstitutional on its face arriving to the Supreme Court. Jumping through hoops and allowing the government as many arguments as it likes to try and fit a square peg into a round hole shows obvious bias toward the “State”.

2. So the original assertion by ALL of the representatives who voted for Obamacare was that it was covered under the Commerce Clause is blatantly false. End of story. Well it should have been, but another debate was had on another premise without any Representatives involved. That debate, legislative debate mind you, was had in a private chamber with Judges who have historically ruled in favor of the government. It is not a stretch to say that the outcome under those circumstances would have been anything different than what we now have.

3. This one is the most disturbing to me. The mentality of the Supreme Court appears to be one of aiding the legislative branch when they overstep their legal bounds. The words “construe a statute to save it” is where almost all of the legislate from the bench mentality comes from. It is not, I repeat not the duty of the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, to write, re-write, or “construe” legislation! Their entire purpose is to be a CHECK and BALANCE as a last resort to strike down errant legislation that does not meet simple Constitutional checks. Using precedent from previous rulings that were in themselves unconstitutional does not alter this fact.

The Supreme Court has for many years used its' own historically flummoxed rulings to both reinterpret and water down the original intent of the Constitution. The only way to change that document is by amendment, which is done by the Congress. If Congress cannot pass a bill that matches the rather simple enumerated powers espoused to them then the Supreme Court should not be enabling the passage of these bills by “reconstruction”. Just like the Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort for the U.S. Congress and their governmental largess, so to is the Supreme Court their legislator of last resort. This needs to change.

The current decision also leaves plenty of room for further challenges to this issue as they left the door wide open on a variety of questions. I could go on for a few more pages, but will end here and if anyone has further questions feel free to contact me.

William A. Johnson

Iowa Senate Candidate R50



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It was mind blowing to me to

It was mind blowing to me to see how many people predicted the court would throw out the mandate.

I'm amazed that Americans STILL think they live under rule of law and a government that wil respect the constitution. The Supreme court is one branch of the whole rotten tree of the US government. It is evil and exists at this point to increase the governments and corporations power and shrink American's freedom.

Roberts being a conservative and Bush appointee was actually good in a way-maybe the foxnews crowd will finally wake up and see that there is no difference between so called the two parties.

John Roberts's flip-flop was

John Roberts's flip-flop was explained to me as a strategy of Karl Rove to infuriate the public into electing Mitt Romney--who now has an I'm-only-one-who-can-save-you role to play. Could this possibly be true? I suppose Rove was influential in Roberts's nomination--but could Roberts be so manipulated by his 'kingmaker'? This story gets stranger and stranger.

Oyez

I actually was wondering..

about his mental state. This has to be the worst, most poorly thought out decision of the SC ever. It's totally ludicrous. Since when is it the SC's purpose to support legislation if possible. I thought they were supposed to determine constitutionality. I find this decision really scary...the feds can force you to do anything they want, now. This decision is the worst possible outcome...who could have even thought it up? Something happened to Roberts to make him do this.

fireant's picture

#3, yes. That's where the lie is

.

Undo what Wilson did

Roberts mental state in question ..

From a link at Drudge:

Roberts Facing Medical Option on 2nd Seizure

Published: August 1, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/health/01seizure.html

SNIP

The decision will involve weighing the risk of more seizures against the risk of side effects from the drugs. Major seizures can be a frightening and traumatic experience for patients and family members. Patients are advised to avoid heights and not to swim alone, and many states bar them from driving until they can provide evidence that the disease is under control.

But the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug.

The chief justice was released yesterday from Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport, Me., one day after being rushed there from his summer home because of the seizure. A statement from the Supreme Court on Monday said that tests at the hospital had found “no cause for concern” and that the cause of the seizure was unknown.

Even though his two seizures occurred 14 years apart, they meet the criteria for epilepsy because they were “unprovoked,” meaning that they were not caused by a head injury, a drug reaction or another known factor.

Snip

“I would say there is no standard recommendation,” Dr. Hauser said. “With multiple seizures, my recommendation generally is to put patients on antiseizure medication, and I think that would be the recommendation of most neurologists.

“That said,” he went on, “the reason one doesn’t immediately put everybody on the medications when they have seizures is that there are side effects to all the medications.”

“Fifteen percent will have some problem with the first drug that will lead to discontinuation and a different drug,” Dr. Hauser added. “Virtually everybody will have some side effects.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/health/01seizure.html

..

_____________________________

Pagans are tolerant by NATURE.
.

SteveMT's picture

A purposefully done "blunder." Roberts took one for the team!

There is only ONE team on this level.

What a strange twist of the

What a strange twist of the law. Justice Roberts, the only unpredicted vote, put a spin on penalty taxation with a flair like a real news media grunt.

It's Romneycare. Not Obamacare

Start calling it what it really is.

Very well stated

You need to send this to Roberts.

Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to explain Roberts' mindset. It's quite disturbing. So he essentially sees his job as bending over backwards as far as possible so as to find in favor of legislation fairly passed by congress.

Given that 4 robed rascals have no problem supporting any sort of government overreach, and now that we know that Roberts will leave no stone unturned in finding in favor of Obamacare, why bother with further challenges? What if further challenges simply send him back to the drawing board to find still other ways to shread the constitution?

It seems to me that yesterday's ruling should be a warning to liberty minded folks that we should be careful taking challenges to legislation to this court. Maybe challenges to edicts from the emperor can be challenged, but shouldn't we leave well enough alone on Obamacare until there is perhaps a more favorable court makeup?

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Unfortunatly, not a blunder, a pattern.

A deliberate process, look at the courts decisions. By and large the court has wanted centralization of power, creating unconstitutional law out of sophistry / doublespeak from the judges. McCulloch v. Maryland, Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, Plessey v. Ferguson, just the 19th century, on, and on, etc...

With this latest decision we have lost control of our bodies and purse, another words, slavery. We must not give our consent and we must nullify.

With the love of liberty :^)

An article said he was red

An article said he was red eyed and seemed upset when he announced the ruling.

Thanks for the explanation, and good luck!

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home
http://www.texasuncensored.blogspot.com

Can Supreme Court Justices be impeached ?

Is there a way to remove these turncoats (especially Roberts) ?

SteveMT's picture

The answer is yes, and they can also be assassinated....

if they don't vote the right way.