Supreme Court

For the second time, John Roberts says to the American people, if you don’t want Obamacare, vote for someone else. He’s not about to void it on a technicality.

2 thoughts on “Supreme Court

  1. All laws are “technicalities.”

    The first time, Roberts had to claim that the mandate was really a tax, even though Mr. Obama and Congress clearly did not INTEND for it to be a tax. In this second case, Roberts claims that his ruling is based his supposition that Congress did not really INTEND for some people to not get subsidies.

    Roberts has jumped the shark. He claims that it was the intention of Congress to “make health care more affordable.” It’s not his job to guess what Congress intended and then rewrite the law to fix what he thinks are errors made by Congress. That’s the definition of legislation.

    Furthermore, Robert’s expertise and scope does not extend to the field of economics. Even if it was in his purview to guess Congress’ intent, i.e. that they passed Obamacare to make health care more affordable (versus passing it to redistribute wealth), he has no standing as an economist to claim that granting subsidies will make it more affordable. Indeed, the opposite is true – subsidies make health care prices rise and increase the amount that we, as a nation, spend on health care.

    • I agree. He is no longer ‘calling balls and strikes’. For whatever reason, he’s not doing his job and neither are the Justices who sided with him. It’s sad.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s