Caprise Has Replaced The Rule of Law

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Let's begin with a 'once upon a time' story....

"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
Common Sense, Thomas Paine.

The following should not be construed to suggest that the Robert's Court is what has eliminated the rule of law in favor of caprice, or 'social justice,' or 'contemporary judges are smarter than the Founders'....

Far from it. Progressivism ended the noble experiment called America.



1. "This week’s Supreme Court decision in King v.Burwell is good news for the Obama administration and terrible news for the rule of law.

2.... the Court upheld an IRS rule ...—by extending health-insurance tax credits to taxpayers in states that have no health insurance exchange of their own, but rather rely on the federal healthcare.gov exchange.

3. The problem with this rule, ... is that it flatly contradicts the ACA.



4. The statute clearly limits tax credits to taxpayers who use state insurance exchanges, not the federal one.
A majority of the Court, therefore, simply rewrote the ACA to make it consistent with the administration’s preferred rule. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in a system in which “all legislative power” is vested in the legislative branch (Constitution, Article I).



5. ...36 states use the federal exchange, and without Obamacare’s tax subsidies, ....The result, according to some critics, was that the individual health-insurance markets in those states would fall into an economic “death spiral” of falling participation and rising premiums.

That was a risk that Congress deliberately took.

6. Obamacare provides two different mechanisms for establishing a health- insurance exchange.

A state can establish an exchange under Section 1311 of the Act.

And in states that “fail” to establish an exchange, the secretary of Health and Human Services must establish an exchange under Section 1321.



7. When discussing eligibility for those all-important tax credits, the ACA says that they are available only to taxpayers who enroll in a qualified health plan “through an Exchange established by the State.”


8. Why did Congress limit tax credits in that way? To pressure states into creating their own exchanges (constitutionally, the federal government cannot force states to create health-care exchanges).

9. At the time of the law’s passage, its congressional backers [Democrats] assumed that each state would buckle under and create its own exchange. Of course, that’s not how things ended up. Enter the IRS, which expanded tax credits to all exchanges in order to guarantee the viability of the Obamacare project.



10. .... Chief Justice John Roberts, has a surreal, through-the-looking glass quality about it. The phrase “an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311,” he says, is “ambiguous.” Actually, the phrase is crystal clear, including the word “state”..."
SCOTUS-care Is Here to Stay by Adam Freedman City Journal June 26 2015



'This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.'

The Hollow Men
by T.S. Eliot

 
"Four Words That Imperil Health Care Law Were All a Mistake, Writers Now Say
“established by the state.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/u...e-act-may-have-been-left-by-mistake.html?_r=0



11. ".... the phrase is crystal clear,
including the word “state” which the ACA defines as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.”
If anything is unambiguous about Obamacare, it’s that tax credits are available only to those who purchase insurance through an exchange established by one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.


No matter: the finding of “ambiguity” gives the Court license to interpret the law, rather than simply applying it.

In the name of interpreting the supposedly ambiguous language, Roberts looks to the overall purpose of Obamacare which, he decides, is the avoidance of the dreaded “death spiral.” His opinion is peppered with references to “death spirals”—one could almost make a drinking game out of it—and Congress’s desire to avoid them.

12. The specific words enacted by Congress are of little importance, we’re told, if those words threaten “to create the very ‘death spirals’”— drink!— “that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”

And so, in order to effectuate the law’s higher purpose, the Court decrees that “an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311” includes “an Exchange established by the Secretary of HHS under Section 1321.”
Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said."
SCOTUS-care Is Here to Stay by Adam Freedman City Journal June 26 2015



The use of the word "interpret" is more accurately replaced by "obviate."
Look it up.

The Court's 'decision' is outside of law, and a clear violation of the authority of the Court.
It is a decision by liars, supported by liars.

 
13. The methods of the Progressives/Democrats is the same that one would expect from a child: "I can do whatever I wish. My oath, my words, my honor.....none exist when I want, wish, desire......."

The left lives by urges, lust, and feellings.

a. "I braced for this decision by SCOTUS still shocked....folks country has fundamentally changed...another giant step toward Banana Republic"
Charles V Payne


b. With today's Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all. [National Review Online,6/25/15]


c. Fox's Andrew Napolitano: Chief Justice Continues To "Undermine His Own Credibility."Appearing on America's Newsroom, Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said that Chief Justice John Roberts had "resorted to a nearly unheard of construction in order to save the statute," going on: "[Roberts] will undermine his own credibility as a fair-minded jurist, because he has reached to bizarre and odd contortions in order to save this statute twice." [Fox News,America's Newsroom,6/25/15]


d. Iowa Radio Host Mickelson: "The Supreme Court Has Now Just Started To Read Obama's Mind Rather Than The Law." On the June 25 edition of The Jan Mickelson Show, Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson claimed the Supreme Court "invented a new doctrine in Obamacare" and "has now just started to read Obama's mind rather than the law." [WHO Radio, The Jan Mickelson Show, 6/25/15]

e. SCOTUS: You can't keep your doctor. You can't keep your health insurance. You can't keep your Constitution.
. toddstarnes

f. Words don't mean anything. Laws don't mean anything. The law is, apparently, whatever Obama says it is. Ben Shapiro

g. Matthew Vadum: Decision Is Roberts Court's "Dred Scott," "Treason."In a series of tweets, senior editor of the Capital Research Center Matthew Vadum slammed the decision and compared it to a legal confirmation of slavery, calling it "the Roberts court's second Dred Scott decision," "third world bulls**t" and "Treason."



This must be the country that Michelle Obama meant to be proud of.
 
Our founders knew there would always be controversy, debate, disagreement and varied interpretations of what they meant when they approved of our constitution and how it and all future laws would be interpreted in differing ways. There solution was to create a final arbiter of disagreements. It was called the Supreme Court. The justices were hoped to be free of political inspiration and motivation by appointing them for lifetime terms. A sort of balance was hoped for by allowing appointment by Presidents so that differing ideology's would have chances of placing their choices on the bench. Approval of the nominees would be required by the Senate, thus giving more balance and the chance of good and wise choices being insisted on.
People who bitch and whine about rulings miss the point of the courts and the three branch system of American government. The founders put in place a system whereby the SCOTUS can be overruled. It has been overruled before and there is nothing stopping disagreeing citizens from overruling it again. Most can not get the support needed and are to lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to create change. That is why so many bitch and whine.
 
Our founders knew there would always be controversy, debate, disagreement and varied interpretations of what they meant when they approved of our constitution and how it and all future laws would be interpreted in differing ways. There solution was to create a final arbiter of disagreements. It was called the Supreme Court. The justices were hoped to be free of political inspiration and motivation by appointing them for lifetime terms. A sort of balance was hoped for by allowing appointment by Presidents so that differing ideology's would have chances of placing their choices on the bench. Approval of the nominees would be required by the Senate, thus giving more balance and the chance of good and wise choices being insisted on.
People who bitch and whine about rulings miss the point of the courts and the three branch system of American government. The founders put in place a system whereby the SCOTUS can be overruled. It has been overruled before and there is nothing stopping disagreeing citizens from overruling it again. Most can not get the support needed and are to lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to create change. That is why so many bitch and whine.



"People who bitch and whine about rulings blah blah blah...."

The essence of the OP is that Progressives/Democrats are low-liifes for whom truth and honor are unknown characteristics.

Thanks so much for popping in as a representative specimen.
 
Last edited:
Our founders knew there would always be controversy, debate, disagreement and varied interpretations of what they meant when they approved of our constitution and how it and all future laws would be interpreted in differing ways. There solution was to create a final arbiter of disagreements. It was called the Supreme Court. The justices were hoped to be free of political inspiration and motivation by appointing them for lifetime terms. A sort of balance was hoped for by allowing appointment by Presidents so that differing ideology's would have chances of placing their choices on the bench. Approval of the nominees would be required by the Senate, thus giving more balance and the chance of good and wise choices being insisted on.
People who bitch and whine about rulings miss the point of the courts and the three branch system of American government. The founders put in place a system whereby the SCOTUS can be overruled. It has been overruled before and there is nothing stopping disagreeing citizens from overruling it again. Most can not get the support needed and are to lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to create change. That is why so many bitch and whine.



"People who bitch and whine about rulings blah blah blah...."

The essence of the OP is that Progressives/Democrats are low-liives for whom truth and honor are unknown characteristics.

Thanks so much for popping in as a representative specimen.
No problem, I enjoy pissing on partisan hack parades with logic, truth and accuracy to counter your kind of disinformation anti american campaigns.
 
Our founders knew there would always be controversy, debate, disagreement and varied interpretations of what they meant when they approved of our constitution and how it and all future laws would be interpreted in differing ways. There solution was to create a final arbiter of disagreements. It was called the Supreme Court. The justices were hoped to be free of political inspiration and motivation by appointing them for lifetime terms. A sort of balance was hoped for by allowing appointment by Presidents so that differing ideology's would have chances of placing their choices on the bench. Approval of the nominees would be required by the Senate, thus giving more balance and the chance of good and wise choices being insisted on.
People who bitch and whine about rulings miss the point of the courts and the three branch system of American government. The founders put in place a system whereby the SCOTUS can be overruled. It has been overruled before and there is nothing stopping disagreeing citizens from overruling it again. Most can not get the support needed and are to lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to create change. That is why so many bitch and whine.



"People who bitch and whine about rulings blah blah blah...."

The essence of the OP is that Progressives/Democrats are low-liives for whom truth and honor are unknown characteristics.

Thanks so much for popping in as a representative specimen.
No problem, I enjoy pissing on partisan hack parades with logic, truth and accuracy to counter your kind of disinformation anti american campaigns.



".... with logic, truth and accuracy...."

None of which are ever part of your posts.

Proven throughout the thread, Roberts lied to reverse the clear language of the bill.

"...But the latest chapter in the Obamacare saga — the case known as King v. Burwell — will revolve around the simple phrase “established by the State,” and whether it should be taken literally."
Obamacare ruling boils down to four simple words - MarketWatch


Having proven my contention, that the Court's decision is based on a lie....
...I have proven exactly the same about you.
 
“established by the State,

“Why isn’t this four-word phrase easy to figure out?” asked Beth Cate, associate professor of law and public affairs at Indiana University. “I do think there are a lot of people scratching their heads.”

The four words show up in Section 1401 of the ACA. That’s where the law provides insurance subsidies for those who can’t afford to pay the full price of their premiums to be obtained through an exchange “established by the State.”
Obamacare ruling boils down to four simple words - MarketWatch
 
14. Jindal: SCOTUS Is 'Out of Control, Let's Just Get Rid of the Court'
“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” the 2016 presidential candidate said in a statement.
Jindal SCOTUS Is Out of Control Let s Just Get Rid of the Court - Leah Barkoukis



15. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. In 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

16. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





17. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense:this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.


And here is where it related to Robert's unlawful decision:

Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government. "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment."
Gutzman, Op. Cit.


"Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government."

Nowhere is that more clear than the ObamaCare decision.
 
Where did OP (PoliticalSpice) go to law school? :eusa_think:

I dare say the SCOTUS knows a tad bit more about the law than her
 
Where did OP (PoliticalSpice) go to law school? :eusa_think:

I dare say the SCOTUS knows a tad bit more about the law than her


There are stretches of the parkway that know more about any subject imaginable than you do.


I'm always amazed that there are posters like you who are never able to provide a post of any......any.......substance.
I have a Carassius auratus more informative than you are.


It's as though you post so as to say....'see....I'm still alive.'
Whoopeee.
 
Where did OP (PoliticalSpice) go to law school? :eusa_think:

I dare say the SCOTUS knows a tad bit more about the law than her



Pop quiz based on the cartoon in your post....

What racist/rapist supported the confederate flag.....and a law requiring it's prominent flying.....for all 12 years he was in office in the state?
Hint: you voted for him.

 
Where did OP (PoliticalSpice) go to law school? :eusa_think:

I dare say the SCOTUS knows a tad bit more about the law than her


There are stretches of the parkway that know more about any subject imaginable than you do.


I'm always amazed that there are posters like you who are never able to provide a post of any......any.......substance.
I have a Carassius auratus more informative than you are.


It's as though you post so as to say....'see....I'm still alive.'
Whoopeee.
She is a Stalinist plant. I've suspected her of being a direct descendant of Roosevelt for quite some time! :eek:
 
Where did OP (PoliticalSpice) go to law school? :eusa_think:

I dare say the SCOTUS knows a tad bit more about the law than her


There are stretches of the parkway that know more about any subject imaginable than you do.


I'm always amazed that there are posters like you who are never able to provide a post of any......any.......substance.
I have a Carassius auratus more informative than you are.


It's as though you post so as to say....'see....I'm still alive.'
Whoopeee.
She is a Stalinist plant. I've suspected her of being a direct descendant of Roosevelt for quite some time! :eek:



Still can't get your head around the topic to which you've gravitated, huh?

You must be quite the moron.
 
18. "The Supreme Court’s decision, and its reasoning, strikes a double blow against the rule of law.

First, it ratifies the executive branch’s unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. When an administrative agency unilaterally rewrites the terms of a statute, it violates Article II’s command that the executive must “faithfully execute” the laws passed by Congress. Compounding the problem, the Court engages in its own power grab—declaring that neither Congress nor the IRS deserve any particular interpretive deference.

Rather, “it is . . . our task to determine the correct reading” of the statute—notwithstanding Congress’s plain language. The result in King will embolden President Obama, and future presidents, to ignore the letter of the law when it contradicts their evolving view of the law’s spirit."
SCOTUS-care Is Here to Stay by Adam Freedman City Journal June 26 2015



"notwithstanding Congress’s plain language."

Written in English....yet poster #12 feels the need to have someone more knowledgeable explain said "plain language."


This...beyond him: “established by the state”
 
Did you mean: definition caprice


Searches Related to definition caprise
 
Did you mean: definition caprice


Searches Related to definition caprise



Yes
 

Forum List

Back
Top