Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used to call ’em as he saw ’em — voting to overturn bad law. But twice with Obamacare, he dreamed of what could be, and asked, ‘Why not?’ He chose to re-interpret the plain language of the law in order to save it. Scott Ott Thought we’re lucky to have a Supreme Court led by a Conservative chief who fixes broken laws so Congress doesn’t have to do its job
There is nobody more on top of Judicial rulings than Judicial Watch, namely because many times they are in the midst of arguing these cases before the court(s).
|Supreme Court Undermines the RepublicThe whole idea behind lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land is to provide justices with insulation from political pressure. They are perfectly positioned to resist the executive, the legislature, the news media and elite opinion to the point where they are free to issue rulings upholding the rule of law. At least that’s the theory, and that’s what Alexander Hamilton, and others, argued in the Federalist Papers (See Federalist No. 78). But that’s not how it played out in the King v. Burwell ruling, which said the federal government was authorized to provide subsidies for individuals whose states did not establish health care exchanges under the terms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). It was last December that we filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in the Kinglawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury over a decision by the agencies to ignore a key provision of the ACA. The lawsuit sought to prevent the IRS from providing refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health care coverage through a federal rather than a state exchange. But because the chief justice twisted himself into a pretzel, yet again, to save the law, the well-reasoned arguments in our brief did not carry the day.
Unfortunately, the rule of law also lost out in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Here, the Supreme Court upheld a federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) interpretation that imposes liability on a state housing decision that disparately impacts certain minorities, despite the absence of evidence of any discriminatory intent. Just to review, under the theory of “disparate impact,” a defendant can be held liable for discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. In such cases, defendants can be forced to pay for harm caused not by their own actions, but by economic and statistical realities, even if beyond their control. We joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in support of the State of Texas’ appeal of a lower court ruling upholding a FHA interpretation that imposes liability on a state housing decision that disparately impacts certain minorities, despite the absence of evidence of any discriminatory intent.
So again, this comes down to a question of motivations. For the second time, the chief justice has seen fit to rewrite key portions of the federal health care law commonly known as Obamacare. Recall that back in 2012 Roberts wrote in his majority decision that the law could be upheld as a tax. So what was legislated as an “individual mandate” was converted and reshaped by the chief justice into a tax. If Obamacare had been described that way right from the get-go, it would never have passed Congress.
Here is my statement on the King v. Burwell ruling:
And yesterday also saw more contortions by justices trying to justify writing into law the notion that we peons practice “unconscious” discrimination and racism, an intellectual absurdity which does nothing but empower the race hustlers both in and out of government who see racism when none exists:
And finally we have the out-of-control ruling released today in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that imposes same-sex marriage on the entire country. As Justice Antonin Scalia has warned in his eloquent dissent, democracy itself is at stake. Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts got it right today, when he says that the opinion by the liberals on the Court has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Here is my statement:
We know what a punch to the gut these rulings are for our readers and supporters who value the rule of law and the idea of constitutional limited government. For the moment, those principles are lost.