Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2017
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.




Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.





Thursday, June 25, 2015

Justice Roberts Subverts The Law Yet Again To Rubber Stamp Illegal Healthcare Legislation. Or As Justice Scalia Writes: "Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of."

In the Supreme Court's most recent decision on Obamacare, Justice Roberts once again REWROTE the Legislation to make it fit his corrupt and egregious rubber stamping of an unConstitutional and illegal Law regarding Healthcare purchasing.  

And even while this Republic may be legally dissolving itself by fast-tracking and voting through a living alien governance, it is being sold to Congressional TRAITORS that it is limited to being only in the same way the United Kingdom came under European Union domination by calling it a Trade Agreement that after the fact they called a Treaty and STILL have yet to vote on after  they were supposed to have before joining in 2004...ELEVEN FRICKIN' YEARS AGO.  But the ever "living document" clause allows an "anything goes" approach by hostile unelected alien governance, and dissolves the Constitution of the United States and all rights we possess thereto.  But I have already addressed that previously.

Now it is time, before this nation dissolves and the internet bans most any free speech that seeks or proclaims the truth as hate speech (beginning August 1, 2015), now it is that time for you  to see that through Justice Roberts, the majority of those serving on the U.S. Supreme Court are just as corrupt, just as evil, just as undeserving of their position of authority and public trust as is so very many in Congress.   Perhaps the excuse by those who dissent and remain, is no different than those Generals of the German High Command and jurisprudence who despised Hitler, yet swore allegiance to him, figuring that sooner or later, this nightmare too will pass.

Review the words of the Supreme Court Chief Justice under Hitler as dramatized by Burt Lancaster regarding that:




The Court heard

DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
No. 14–114. Argued March 4, 2015—Decided June 25, 2015 

and I have to wonder, if this case is a clear example of why the majority of those serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, like the current majority dishonoring the office they are elected to properly serve WE THE PEOPLE in Congress, is on a suicide mission to dissolve itself as no longer functional as a legal body.  Yes, it is THAT serious.  

The entire text is available here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

And I have great issue with the Court even entertaining a decision that was passed by 1 minority vote against 8 in the majority that said it could NOT be interpreted as a tax, 

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/06/questions-remain-on-healthcare-ruling.html

and then continue down that path, pretending a legal interpretation that did NOT pass is now how they will pretend the Law is because of...what?  Their salaries will be with-held?  Their family will be terrorized and threatened to be killed as what happened to Roberts to change his original opposition to Obamacare, in a media story that began to leak and then was suddenly blacked out and pulled from all mention and reference?  So perhaps this is why even the dissenting Justices gloss over that Obamacare was never affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court by majority and was de facto defeated, and pretend, and go along to get along and keep breathing?  Is that it?  







In regard to upholding the Unconstitutional Obamacare Legislation, Justice Roberts on page 21 of the majority decision wrote:

"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done."

Justice Roberts SIDESTEPPED the undoing of anything that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and in effect, if Congress passes anything, even legislation that is unConstitutional and something someone else put together and originated in the wrong house of Congress or what have you, it is (according to Justice Roberts by inference) NOW the job of the Supreme Court to rubber stamp it and say, "Not our problem...go to hell." 


In the minority dissent on page 3, Justice Scalia wrote in reply:

"I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them. Any effort to understand rather than to rewrite a law must accept and apply the presumption that lawmakers use words in “their natural and ordinary signification.” Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 12 (1878).

 Ordinary connotation does not always prevail, but the more unnatural the proposed interpretation of a law, the more compelling the contextual evidence must be to show that it is correct. Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of."

On page 6 of the dissent, noting that Justice Roberts was rewriting the Legislation yet again to force a new interpretations to make the Law as if an exhibition of a flying gymnastic contortionist, Justice Scalia remarked:
   "It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State” once. But seven times?"

On Page 13 of the dissent, Justice Scalia writes:  
   Having gone wrong in consulting statutory purpose at all, the Court goes wrong again in analyzing it. The purposes of a law must be “collected chiefly from its words,” not “from extrinsic circumstances.” Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 202 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.). Only by concentrating on the law’s terms can a judge hope to uncover the scheme of the statute, rather than some other scheme that the judge thinks desirable.


On Page 18 Justice Scalia remarks:
"The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989)."



On Page 19 of the minority dissent, Justice Scalia reaffirms Justice Roberts is engaging in rewriting Legislation that is the job of Congress to do:
"Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do...."



On page 20 of the minority dissent, Justice Scalia writes:
"What a parody today’s decision makes of Hamilton’s assurances to the people of New York: “The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). * * * Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote [i.e., Justice Roberts alone versus the 8 other Supreme Court Justices himself alone rewrote]  the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45)." 



On page 21 of the minority dissent, Justice Scalia writes:
"But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax,... “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent."  




No comments:

Post a Comment