The Chimera of Liberal Jurisprudence.

[PoliticalChic]

There is no JUSTICE in Liberal Jurisprudence.
Proof to follow.


Chimera.... an illusion or fabrication of the mind.
Jurisprudence .... the theory or philosophy of law.



The seeds of destruction of the nation imagined, created, by the Founders can be found in article III of our Constitution.
The courts. Judges.

When lying, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed individuals find their way into the judiciary, and a portion of the electorate is made of such dullards that they accept black as white, and up as down....well, we have what we are witnessing today.





No better illustration of my charge is the most recent split decision re: ObamaCare subsidies.


1. "WASHINGTON — Two federal appeals court panels issued conflicting rulings Tuesday on whether the government could subsidize health insurance premiums for millions of Americans, raising yet more questions about the future of the health care law four years after it was signed by President Obama.

2. By a vote of 2 to 1, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a regulation issued by the Internal Revenue Service that authorizes the payment of premium subsidies in states that rely on the federal insurance exchange.

3. Critics of the law, who said the ruling in Washington vindicated their opposition to it, did not have much time to celebrate. Within hours, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., issued a ruling that came to the opposite conclusion.

a. The Fourth Circuit panel upheld the subsidies, saying the I.R.S. rule was “a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

[*Liberalese for 'never mind what the law says.']

b. The language of the Affordable Care Act on this point is “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,” the Fourth Circuit panel said, so it gave deference to the tax agency.

[*'interpretation' is Liberalese for 'never mind what is clearly written in the law.]





4. In the case decided in Washington on Tuesday, Halbig v. Burwell, the appeals court panel said that the Affordable Care Act made subsidies available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.

[This is central: "...subsidies available ONLY to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states]


on·ly
1.
and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...S528US528&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=only define




a. Another member of the appeals court panel, Judge Harry T. Edwards, a senior circuit judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter, filed a dissent in which he described the lawsuit as an “attempt to gut” the law. The majority opinion, he said, “defies the will of Congress.” He said that the Obama administration’s reading of the law was “permissible and reasonable, and, therefore, entitled to deference.”

[* '“defies the will of Congress.” is Liberalese for 'never mind what the Congress voted on.']




5. Reacting to the ruling, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Emily Pierce, said, “We believe that this decision is incorrect, inconsistent with congressional intent, different from previous rulings and at odds with the goal of the law.”

[* 'inconsistent with congressional intent,'....need I define?]

6. The health law authorized subsidies specifically for insurance bought “through an exchange established by the state.”

a. When the law was adopted, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats assumed that states would set up their own exchanges. But many Republican governors and state legislators balked, and opposition to the law became a rallying cry for the party."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/us/court-rules-against-obamacare-exchange-subsidies.html?_r=0





7. Everyone get that? The law says "The health law authorized subsidies specifically for insurance bought “through an exchange established by the state.”

But the lying Liberal fake-judges claim not to understand the words "only" or"state:" The language of the Affordable Care Act on this point is “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,” the Fourth Circuit panel said, so it gave deference to the tax agency.





Liberals should be thrown out of either the nation....or, at least, any ability to wield power!

(If the former...keep a few for circus side-shows.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

That was once upon a time.
How very far we have fallen from Paine's precept, now that Liberals have taken hold of the judiciary.





8. The law says "The health law authorized subsidies specifically for insurance bought “through an exchange established by the state.”

But the lying Liberal fake-judges claim not to understand the word "state:" The language of the Affordable Care Act on this point is “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,” the Fourth Circuit panel said, so it gave deference to the tax agency.


"...ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,..."

Lie: : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
to create a false or misleading impression






8. When the Constitution was written, the view was that judges are there to apply the law.....not to write law, or 'interpret' or improvise or decode or adapt law.
Apply...employ....administer the law.....as written!!!

apply: to employ diligently or with close attention; to bring into action


They Legislative writes the laws, the executive carries out the laws.....the judiciary applies the law!
Once upon a time.....






9. "The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had suffered under tyrannical and dictatorial British judges," the position paper says, adding, "Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches. The judiciary has acted on the premise of 'judicial supremacy,' where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches."
"Item No. 9" in the Newt Gingrich 2012 position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution."



What is the future for a lawless nation, one where 'judges' lie and cheat?

None.....no future, as long as Liberals rule.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course the media, the Liberal 'air cover,' rushed in to claim that government has no obligation to follow the law:



10. " Lower courts have sided with the government, which contended that Congress meant for the subsidies to be available in all states, including those that left the job of setting up a marketplace to the federal government. "
Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies - The Washington Post

...courts have sided????
Now we change the laws depending on the political party on the bench????



Congresss "meant"??????
The law says "states".......that is all the reading necessary.





11. This is how the Left sees the judiciary:

Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl: "The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . "


For those on the Left, law, and everything else, is subservient to equality.

Everyone, whether able to articulate it or not, has a values system. The trick -- often a difficult trick -- is to isolate precisely what those values are. The Left is now, as it has always been, the child of the French Revolution and of Karl Marx.
For both, the greatest evil is not injustice, not cruelty, not even murder; it is inequality.
Columns « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

 

[PoliticalChic]

We live in a lawless nation...a Liberal nation....is that redundant?



They control the courts, the media, the schools.....and far too many are willing to allow these disseminators of information to do their thinking for them.



11. What happens when the media is allied with the Left? Watch:

The law says "The health law authorized subsidies specifically for insurance bought “through an exchange established by the state.”

a. Washington Compost lies: " Because of this ambiguity,..."

Ambiguity????
The word 'state' is clearly written in the law.
It's right there in the article: "...
" The plain text of Obamacare authorizes subsidies only through state exchanges, not the federal exchange,”





b. But, further down, we find the truth:

" Republicans, however, cited the decision as more evidence that the legislation is flawed.
“Today’s decision rightly holds the Obama administration accountable to the law. The plain text of Obamacare authorizes subsidies only through state exchanges, not the federal exchange,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.
“The court considered the administration’s justifications and came to an unmistakable conclusion: President Obama overreached.”
Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies - The Washington Post





12. Now what? Hold the Obama administration to obedience to the law????

The two conflicting judicial decisions are not just evidence....but proof that 'Liberal law is based not on law but on 'liberal'???

The Obama administration is now demanding that all the eleven judges in the Washington court sit in on the decision.....because the majority of them are Liberal-appointees...


"If the D.C. Circuit grants the administration’s request for a full “en banc” hearing, legal experts say, the law’s supporters will be more likely to prevail. The court has four relatively new judges nominated by Obama,..."

I rest my case.