Late this morning many of you may have heard that the SCOTUS has upheld Obamacare, despite the plain language of the law. Indeed, Antonin Scalia wrote a blistering minority opinion, and, as only happens rarely, asked and presented it from the bench. His closing comment may be the definitive statement on the SCOTUS behavior – “it should be called SCOTUScare.”<\/p>\n
What appears to be on display here is government protecting government. Chief Justice Roberts admitted in his opinion that the law specified “State” but then went on to claim that if the court didn’t support this, the legislation would die, and so the Congressional desires would be thwarted. I, for one, had not been aware that the purpose fo the Court was to keep Congressional purpose alive, even in the face of bad law. Judging from this ruling, it would appear that the Court can now modify pretty much anything to anything IT thinks is appropriate.<\/p>\n
In BDB’s post elsewhere, he speaks of enemies of the nation. It would seem the SCOTUS has joined those ranks. AND there doesn’t seem to be a thing we can do about it.<\/p>\n
Late this morning many of you may have heard that the SCOTUS has upheld Obamacare, despite the plain language of the law. Indeed, Antonin Scalia wrote a blistering minority opinion, and, as only happens rarely, asked and presented it from the bench. His closing comment may be the definitive statement on the SCOTUS behavior – “it should be called SCOTUScare.”<\/p>\n
What appears to be on display here is government protecting government. Chief Justice Roberts admitted in his opinion that the law specified “State” but then went on to claim that if the court didn’t support this, the legislation would die, and so the Congressional desires would be thwarted. I, for one, had not been aware that the purpose fo the Court was to keep Congressional purpose alive, even … Continue reading