 |
| Guess who ELSE is sunk now, too? |
Normally, we'd apologize for using that expletive - but according to dissenting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in reference to the majority's bizarre ruling, "words no longer have a meaning."
And Chief Justice John Roberts (who at this point should be credited as the co-author of Obamacare along with Jonathan "the voters are stupid" Gruber) apparently agrees, saying "in this instance, 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."
But what context and structure is he referring to which compels a departure from reality?
According to Roberts, "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."
So Roberts is again violating his duties by ruling on what he believes the intent was when one political party unilaterally passed an act they hadn't bothered to read. And in coming to his conclusion, Roberts has had to ignore Jonathan Gruber's plainspoken admissions that the Act was written to deliberately punish states which did not establish their own healthcare exchanges. The "pertinent statutory phrase" was clear, deliberate, and the exact opposite of what Roberts is now saying.
But let's go a step further. Contrary to Roberts' opinion, the Affordable Care Act was written to destroy health insurance markets, so that when the full implementation of Obamacare fails (as it is already doing), no market solution will exist on which to fall back. The only choice will be single-payer socialized medicine, which has always been the goal of Obama and his minions - not to improve healthcare, but to solidify absolute control over our lives.
This is a sad day for any Americans who still looked to the Supreme Court as a possible counterbalance to the wild excesses of the Executive branch of government. That ship has clearly sailed and, with the mournful strains of "Nearer My God To Thee" echoing in the darkness, sunk from sight.
"Women, children and state exchanges first!"
ReplyDeleteWhat did people do before they had health insurance? When I was young our family did not have health insurance because it was not readily available and the doctors’ charges although seeming to be bit high and a little inconvenient were okay because the doctor took payments as did most hospitals. If a person had a catastrophic illness or injury, their family, church or local community members would pitch in and take care of it. Most babies were birthed at home and most deaths were at home. Most people received nursing care at home provided by Mom or another relative. Many people had a “family doctor” who would make house calls if needed. A family doctor would do most everything except perhaps major surgery. Hospitals usually had empty beds. I had double mumps. chicken pox and measles, cared for at home. There was little medical care inflation until health care insurance became widely available. We started to get medical care inflation on steroids because of the deep pocket of third party payers. I remember working in a hospital a few years after Medicare started up. The doctors were tickled to death with it and they learned how to use it to their best advantage. (and I don’t blame them) They are not so hot on it anymore, but it’s still better than nothing. So, the more money the third party payer has to spend the more the system demands of it.
ReplyDeleteWe’re getting the same kind of super inflation in our college system now. The more money that’s available the more the system will demand of it.
Simple law of supply and demand!
Then we can add that when there is a large supply of money, there will be an equal supply of lawyers.
Where in the constitution does it say that people have a right to have someone else pay for their healthcare or healthcare insurance? Now that SCOTUS has gone to the "Left Side" having abandoned the meaning of words within the English language the court is now free to ignore the actual text of laws and pretend things were written that never were. ObamaCare is entirely unconstitutional. Period
“We should start by calling this law SCOTUScare,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.
Justice is dead in America, our system has failed, we are now under a Dictatorship!
Note: The first real health care insurance in the U.S. was Blue Cross – Blue Shield { Wikipedia} they started in the late 1920s.
When Justice Roberts was confirmed to SCOTUS, I thought we had a sane voice to counter-balance the over the top liberals on the bench; unfortunately, Justice Roberts has proven to be a monumental disappointment. I have to wonder what Valerie Jarrett has on Justice Roberts.
ReplyDeleteNot that it will go anywhere: "A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare."
ReplyDeletehttp://bit.ly/1e6C1dE
How sad for a constitution that is already in tatters.
L'Etat, C'est moi says the SCOTUS.
ReplyDeleteAnd America is now well and truly dead.
May God have mercy on us all.
Add this to the disparate impact decision as the coup de grace shot in the forehead.
Obviously Roberts has been bought off or blackmailed and is now owned by the globalists. As this also appears to be the case with much of the rest of the (I refuse to say "our") government, I believe the only ways that our beloved country can possibly survive are through a Constitutional Convention of the States, a Military Coup, or a Civil War. God help us, indeed.
ReplyDeleteOne thing the Robert's ruling has done, it has invalidated any and all contracts, legal agreements, and judicial sentencing. No longer can the the people be held to account for such foolish things.
ReplyDeleteThe men and women in black robes ruled that the subsidies WILL be available to all the peasants, no matter what the law said. The judges inferred the meaning they wanted from words that did not provide it.
ReplyDeleteWe live in wonderland and Humpty Dumpty is lord of the language. The men and women in black robes are our national magisterium. I weep for the country that used to be free and thank God this is not my home. May God have mercy on my grandchildren as they will have to suffer under the heavy hand of this master more than I will.
John Roberts is now speaking like Obama. A lot of fancy words with no understandable meaning.
ReplyDeleteLooking to the Soopreme Court and 9 Lawyers in dirty black robes to decree how 280 million people live, work, play, and breathe has always been a Disaster since Marbury vs. Madison when they preempted the role of deciding "Constitutionality" and started implementing "Case Law" in place of the Constitution which they have always Bastardized.
ReplyDeleteAll 3 Branches of the Feral Gov. are now in agreement that the District of Control Rules the States, and the Sheeples without question.
The Republic has been long gone, now it appears even FDR's Demoncracy is to be replaced with FIAT.
Because there is a lot of chatter regarding Roberts being blackmailed, I'd thought
ReplyDeleteI'd "share" something I saw this AM.
http://bit.ly/1e7RZ3u
Sadly if the type of "American" that is in the majority today had lived in the 1770's there would have been no Declaration of Independence, no Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThey have already pretty much succeeded in gutting the latter document, and the former will soon be relegated to the dustbin of forgotten history I am afraid.
The Rule Of Law is dead.
ReplyDeleteFirst the Commerce Clause corruption by the Wilsonian Stalinists (i.e., the so-called "progressives") and now the SCOTUS legislature making it up as they go. Not the first time but easily the most obvious. I suspect that Roberts was channeling Warren. Earl, not Lizzie Borden.
I am quite concerned about the survival of our Constitution. We are nearing the tipping point - I suspect the progs will flush it in some sort of ... well, whatever.
I am very worried.
What has really happened here is that the court has vindicated the concept of obscenely huge and complex legislation that is literally impossible for any individual to read, much less comprehend, leaving "interpretation" up to armies of faceless, unelected, and politically unaccountable bureaucrats who can bend the end results to suit whatever ideology is prevalent within the establishment. And when necessary, the court will step in and justify the prevalent establishment because not doing so would cause an unacceptable level of chaos.
ReplyDelete@Stilton is correct. We can no longer rely upon the Supreme Court as a balance against runaway government.
"The more money that’s available the more the system will demand of it." Exactly, @Joseph ET. But let me add that the further away that the consumer gets from the transaction, the more out of control the system will get. People who don't see the money being spent as "their" money don't care so much how well it's spent.
@Proof- Sorry, no room in the lifeboats for Constitutionalists!
ReplyDelete@Joseph ET- Adding to the wild cost growth of medical care over the years is the growth of life-saving and life-extending technologies. In earlier times, people just suffered or died; now they get help - but the costs can be astronomical.
Just hours ago, I had a routine colonoscopy which I got a good price on because I paid for it up front; involving my insurance agency would have added thousands of dollars to the cost for exactly the same care. Insanity.
The SCOTUS ruling on the "intent" rather than the language of the law raises some other interesting questions; wasn't the intent to bring down costs? Wasn't there an oft-expressed intent to let people keep their policies and doctors if they wanted? Why isn't Roberts fixing those little problems?
@Bobo the Hobo- My friend, cartoonist Glenn McCoy, did a great cartoon of Obama holding a photo of Roberts (wearing a bra) in bed with a sheep. There may be more truth to that than anyone guesses.
@Chish McFicken- I like the idea of this Bill, but can't imagine it getting passed. Personally, I'd like to see the end of ALL waivers that get government employees out of Obamacare.
@Queso Grande- My illustration of the Supreme Court sinking like the Titanic is the clearest representation of how I genuinely feel. For now, at least, the institution is dead. It has become just as lawless as the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch continues to be freaking useless. It gets harder and harder to imagine that we can ever climb out of this hole.
And though I didn't mention it today, the "disparate impact" decision is another nightmare. Americans can now be charged with discrimination even if they never intended to discriminate against anyone.
@Geoff King- I actually doubt any of those harsh measures would succeed, because too much of the populace has been brainwashed into wanting what the Left promises. It's one thing to try to regain control of the government; quite another to control a hostile population.
@Grumpy Curmudgeon- I agree; if contracts can now be argued on their "intent" rather than their plain and exact language, then such documents are meaningless.
@Manfred- There's no question that, thanks to this ruling, the American healthcare system is heading to the ash heap. I'm starting to think of the black-robed members of the Supreme Court as if they were JRR Tolkien's ringwraiths...
@chef621- I completely agree. He's all semantics and no substance.
@Anonymous- It is pretty hard to see representative government in any branch these days, isn't it?
@Chish McFicken- Until proved otherwise, I'm going to imagine the blackmail on Roberts is far more sordid than anything suggested so far.
@American Cowboy- Sadly, you're right. The citizenry ain't what it used to be.
@Juanita the Icon- You're right to be worried. The "Balance of Power" in our government is badly unbalance now, and the societal changes being foisted off on us aren't the result of traditional legislation or representative government. We are being ruled rather than governed.
@John the Econ- Perfect summation. Lawmakers now need only pass unintelligible laws which can later be tailored to fit the political zeitgeist. Or to put it another way, "we have to pass it so that later we can make up what's in it."
ReplyDeleteI often bemoan the fact that I have no artistic ability because I frequently have (what seems to me) an idea that would make good lampoon cartoon. Today's idea is Obama as a ventriloquist with his hand up wooden dummy Justice Roberts' butt. Oh, wait...
ReplyDeleteI think it sank when it declared Obamacare was a tax issue (up to Congress, not the court), but declared DOMA wasn't. Since the Feds use Marriage a tax classification and nothing else, this SCOTUS has become contradictory and two-faced in it's rulings.
ReplyDeleteCall me a c*ock-eyed optimist. Forget Repeal and Replace: conservatives have no coherent replacement for the ACA ready. If we critics are correct, this law will now sink under its' own weight. Conservatives, should they maintain their sway in Congress AND capture the White House, will face this prospect in 2017: the ACA, which has never enjoyed wide-spread public support and which was passed over their strenuous objections, will implode due to all of its' integral contradictions. THEN there will be carte blanche to repeal and replace. Let's hope that this inevitable crisis isn't wasted.
ReplyDeleteWell, they did it...this week, although I always held out 'hope' that some things would 'change', I do believe, at least it's how I feel today...that this decades-long creep toward tyranny is finally bearing the sort of fruit that, around a hundred years ago, the progressives here in this country and elsewhere could only dream of bringing about! American was strong, confident, and God-fearing; Americans would work hard, sacrifice and live in the belief that this country was blessed by God.
ReplyDeleteWe are on the other end of that stick now: weak, disrespected, disloyal, mockers of God and lazy. Just as Israel angered God so many times, and paid the heavy toll, after God had blessed them all abundantly...America, too, will bear the judgment of Almighty God.
"This is a sad day for any Americans who still looked to the Supreme Court as a possible counterbalance to the wild excesses of the Executive branch of government. That ship has clearly sailed and, with the mournful strains of "Nearer My God To Thee" echoing in the darkness, sunk from sight."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you can no longer play a hymn or any other music that references God on the Ship of State.
SCOTUS has said so...
@RRL, I wish I could be so optimistic. You are right and I agree that the GOP had nothing to replace ObamaCare. The ACA will collapse, sooner than later. It was designed to do nothing other. But replace it with what? There is no viable "free market solution" for health care left to go back to. It barely existed when the ACA was passed in 2010.
ReplyDeleteThe ACA will collapse, but since what was left of the private system will have collapsed with it, what can it possibly be replaced with? The only viable solution will be the left's ultimate goal, the "single payer" paradigm. The GOP will go along with it because nothing else will be possible.
The time to fix health care in this country was 20 years ago when HillaryCare was resoundingly rejected by the voters. Unfortunately, the GOP, which was high on it's victory over the Clintons and on it's first total ownership of Congress in 40 years was satisfied with that, and didn't see an upside to attacking the controversial and real problems with health care delivery. So the problems festered until the Democrats re-took Congress and the White House.
It's too late now. Get ready for the new taxes and lines that are inevitable.
After the SCOTUS decided that words don’t matter it’s no surprise that they also decided that the word marriage has a different definition too. The unattended consequence of gays being married is that they will exposed to the great intuition of divorce lawyer$ too.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the heterosexual community needs to find a new word for heterosexual marriage and heterosexual wedding. With new words to use churches, bakeries and florists can provide services as they see fit.
Oh no! Mrs. ET is starting to think that three husbands could be useful in many ways. She won’t explain what ways she has in mind. She has a nice smile through.
Queso Grande...
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS?
I'm thinking it is SCROTUS!
Sickening Crap Rejecting Our True United States!
I would expect this kind of bullshit from "So duh my yore" or "K gun", but Roberts is proving to be a Constitutional MORON!!! My left BUTT-CHEEK could write a decision with better value than THIS "embezzle"!
If something positive doesn't happen fast, we are SOOOOOO screwed!
So there is this from an org I like, FEE: " Marriage is therefore a sort of government benefit. " OK. So marriage is a contract. If you can sign a contract, you are now good to go. I have always been a live and let live Juanita but have concerns about culturally-based societal institutions. No more. You can hoot and holler all you want, there is absolutely not reason now why any one, any group, of adults who are legally responsible citizens (or illegal immigrants) can now sign a contract to do whatever. In fact maybe all of the illegals (hey, I am not called Juanita for nuttin') should have a group marriage. Done.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is the ninth amendment which, like the commerce clause, is now a catch all for "there are rights everywhere in the constitution including screwing the pooch!"
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Constitution is so yesterday, so screwed. It's over people. The Stalinists have won, and Pelosi is their prophet.
Things are going to get interesting, albeit in ways that the Progressives are not expecting.
ReplyDeleteFor one, homosexuals aren't going to do any more damage to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have already long since done. Take Bill & Hillary Clinton as an example of that.
Second, now that gay marriage is done, it no longer has to exist as a wedge issue between conservatives and the left. A fair percentage of the homosexuals I know are not "liberal" on most issues. (Our friend here Jim, who's opinion I'd find interesting at this point is a prime example) They are as concerned about most of the issues we are, and only remained aligned with the Democrats because of this single issue. Now that it's over, expect a big swing to the right by these people. Like so many other identity groups, the Democrats no longer own them.
Third, expect a move towards accepting polygamy within the next decade. This will be in deference to the multi-culti left's wish to absorb the ever growing Islamic population as brothers. (Forget their women as they don't count) Plus, it might just attract some Mormons, who tend to have a lot of money to spend on politics. Imagine the victory if Utah could be converted to a blue state.
Have a nice weekend with these mind-worms I've planted.