The Supreme Court was designed to be a neutral arbiter of the law. They are the scale that weighs the worth of an argument against the United States Constitution. Their lifetime tenure in the office was to ensure they were not victims of political whims and the winds of a fickle electorate.
According to Whitehouse.gov:
“The Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied.”
In essence, the court is to make politically neutral decisions and interpretations when the law is in question. But when the court is corrupted by judges who are not neutral, but rather ideological, the entire ecosystem of the federal government becomes deformed.
Our government is not perfect, but it was designed to be a finely tuned balance of powers. When one of three branches becomes warped, the entire process begins to die like a limb restricted of blood-flow.
In the case of King v. Burwell, which was decided on Thursday, citizens sued because their state had not created ACA healthcare exchanges. Under the ACA law, healthcare subsidies can only be provided to Americans via state exchanges, not the federal ACA system. The wording of the ACA law provision is a straightforward as can be. The text reads:
“State must assume cost…”
Ben Shapiro writes:
“This provision was purposefully designed to incentivize states to set up their own exchanges, in order that politicians could take credit for making health insurance more widely available with the help of the federal government.”
But Chief Justice John Roberts decided that the wording is up to interpretation.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a killer dissent, which reads in part:
“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government’…
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State’…it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges…
Under all the normal rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation always seem to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved…We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
If the Supreme Court is tainted, there we have the beginning of the fall of the republic. If SCOTUS is intentionally twisting the words of a law to say exactly the opposite of what they were intended to say simply because they like that particular law, they’ve become useless.
SCOTUS has become a new branch altogether, one which is a combination of the legislative branch and the executive branch.
With that, the system has become irrevocably imbalanced, and our original design has been corrupted. Once this happens, there is no longer precedent for obeying the rules of our constitution. If SCOTUS can openly defy the law to their liking, what else is able to be modified or revised?
This opens the door to an array of dangerous behaviors of which I guarantee the federal government will take advantage.
Witness part one of the fall of the republic.