Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


SCOTUSCare: Supreme Court Makes Law


There was very little doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has made itself into a “superbranch” of government, usurping for itself not only judicial powers but also legislative ones, and now the rogue opinion of the majority of the court in King v. Burwell has removed any remaining doubt.

Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt strong-armed the Supreme Court into backing his patently unconstitutional socialist schemes, the nation’s highest court has established a growing pattern of usurping powers not granted to it by the U.S. Constitution. Now, SCOTUS not only adjudicates on the bills passed by our legislative branch and signed into law by the chief executive, but also reserves for itself the “right” to create law for itself.

The Supreme Court’s “right” to create law is not subject to the electoral accountability of the people, since Supreme Court justices are not elected, nor is the Supreme Court’s “right” to create law subject to the approving signature of the chief executive. The majority of the Supreme Court can simply decide “This is what the law should say,” and because apparently no one has the guts to stand up to their tyranny, their opinion is accepted as law.

We saw this at least as long ago as 1973 when the Supreme Court majority manufactures a “right” for a woman to kill her own child for any reason, so long as part of its body remained inside the mother. Never mind morality. Never mind the right to life recognized in our nation’s founding document.

Never mind the fact that the federal government is not given authority over abortion or health care in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and that the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that any such governmental authority would rest with the states, not the federal government.

Though it is far from the only instance since then, we saw another egregious example in 2012 of SCOTUS usurping legislative powers not granted to it by the U.S. Constitution. When the brazenly unconstitutional ObamaCare scheme came before the Supreme Court in 2012, the court majority–including no less than the Republican-appointed chief justice–wrote a tortured, laughable excuse to “justify” ObamaCare under the taxation powers of the federal government.

Though some speculated Chief Justice John Roberts was blackmailed into the decision due to the illogical and incomprehensible nature of his opinion, the court was allowed to create a new “law” which in essence allows the federal government to do anything it wants, so long as there is a tax associated with that action.

The troubled and broken ObamaCare scheme found itself in trouble yet again with regard to the taxpayer-funded subsidies it sought to provide to people who had not earned them. You see, in order to even remotely provide the illusion that ObamaCare made health care more affordable (for some people) and could get more people “insured,” they had to include a scheme to put the taxpayers on the hook to pay for some people’s health care insurance.

But in order to “incentivize” the states to go along with the scheme and keep some of the burden off the federal government, ObamaCare was crafted to provide to the states some of that taxpayer largess if they would set up their own exchanges. Unfortunately for ObamaCare enthusiasts, most states didn’t take the bait and refused to set up their own health care exchanges–meaning, as the law was clearly written, people in states that didn’t set up their own health care exchanges were not entitled to taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Since most states didn’t do this, the financial inviability of ObamaCare was once again laid bare, and Leftists began to file suit to “have their cake and eat it too,” i.e. force the taxpayers to cough up more money, even though their own law clearly prohibited it. That is the essence of King v. Burwell. Lower courts found it difficult to manufacture “law” that did not exist, and ruled against illegally putting the taxpayers on the hook for more largess.

We even have ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber on video admitting the scheme, and admitting that the ObamaCare authors were counting on the stupidity of the American people, that taxpayer-funded subsidies would only be available in exchanges that were “established by the state.”

Now, some of the people who are being forced by the federal government to purchase their “free” health care in states that didn’t play along with ObamaCare are screaming because suddenly the “free” health care they are being forced to buy costs more than it otherwise would have before ObamaCare. So now that their little scheme didn’t work and the peasants are screaming, the government health care nuts want to “rewrite” the law (without having to go through the icky process of actually rewriting the law via the constitutional method, and in a Republican-majority congress, at that) to save their bacon. And the SCOTUS majority is playing right along like good little lawless tyrants.

The issue has made its way to the Supreme Court…and oh-so-sadly-predictably, lawless judges on the Supreme Court have once again rescued the anti-American socialists in the executive and legislative branches from their own incompetence.

The majority opinion admits that their motivation is not adherence to the law as stated, but to once again manufacturing “law” to save the socialists from their own incompetence:

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.


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on

Send this to a friend