SUPREME COURT RULING ON OBAMACARE...

Today the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, decided to allow Obamacare to continue in its present format.

Republicans brought a very specious challenge to the Obamacare law based on four words “established by the state”. 

Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the opinion, said that the “intent” of the law by its “authors” was what was important in this case and not the interpretation, one way or another, of a phrase.

Judge Scalia read his blistering descent from the bench saying that Roberts picks the laws he likes and those he does not like so it basically is  SCOTUScare and not Obamacare (SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States).

The case did not involve the interpretation of the Constitution which is what the Supreme Court does. In this case it was basically an absurd challenge to the interpretation of the law’s actual language; it’s like challenging that a comma was in the wrong place.

It shows us how desperate the Republicans are to scuttle a law that is doing people some good while not having a law to replace the one they want to repeal. In fact, the Republicans were scared that if the Supreme Court sided with them they would have to come up with a replacement law immediately to save millions of people from having their medical insurance cancelled; see how fucking childish this whole issue is?

I was impressed with Roberts (this time) for looking at the “intent” of the “authors” in writing this bill.

It is a good time to compare this to the “Separation of Church and State” understanding in the First Amendment in our Constitution. Many argue that the exact language is not in the Constitution therefore cannot be interpreted as being in the Constitution. 

The “authors” of the First Amendment including Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated that “ a wall of separation between Church and State” is exactly what they intended when writing the First Amendment.

To show you how this legal approach is not de rigueur in other cases, take the Second Amendment. The authors of the Second Amendment had clearly established the legality, if not a duty, to bear arms (have arms) but ONLY as part of a well-regulated MILITIA. Since we do not have militias in this country anymore (we have national guards), this does not grant individual a Constitutional right to bear arms.

So when it comes to the Supreme Court; they do what they want to do.