John Roberts: The Umpire Strikes Out

There is no doubt Chief Justice John Roberts is an intelligent man. He can cite and discuss legal cases without notes and he is well versed. These fact make his two decisions in the Affordable Care Act (previously known as Obamacare but now to be known as SCOTUScare) quite perplexing. Roberts basically rewrote the law and twisted logic as well as stepping out of his area of responsibility to ensure that the law formerly known as Obamacare survived.

When the ACA was being forced on us the Obama Regime said that the fee for not getting insurance was a penalty and NOT a tax. Obama chided George Stephanopoulos when George said the penalty seemed to fit the dictionary definition of a tax. Of course Obama was lying then because he knew it was actually a tax.

But the Regime called it a penalty and defended it as such to the public. The Democrats called it a penalty in the law and told their constituents that it was not a tax. Mr. Gruber, the POS who helped with this said it had to be called a penalty or it would have never passed and that the Regime depended on the stupidity of the public to get it passed.

When the Regime went to court it argued that the penalty was really a tax for the purpose of arguing in court and that anything to the contrary was just silly.

Despite overwhelming evidence John Roberts sided with the left wing of the court and rewrote the legislation to make the penalty a tax and within the authority of Congress. He upheld the law by legislating from the bench.

Fast forward to now. There is a portion of the ACA that says subsidies will only be available to those who get insurance from exchanges established by the state. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this sentence means the individual states. This is how it was intended and the Democrats along with Goebbels Gruber even told us that it would be in the best interest of the people if states set up exchanges so that the people could get subsidies. Given the straight forward language and what they said there is no doubt what it was supposed to be. This sentence was the subject of a Supreme Court case and once again Roberts sided with the liberal wing and rewrote the legislation. Roberts read the minds of those in Congress (Democrats only) and concluded that they really meant that state and federal government.

Roberts disgraced himself and his court and his legacy will be one of failure. I do not like the left wing right wing idea of a court. Courts are supposed to be impartial and rule on the law. Roberts made himself a legislator along with the lefties and rewrote the law to once again save Obama.

After Roberts knelt before Obama and pleased him there is no doubt now how he will vote on gay marriage. This issue should be left to the states and Roberts made a big deal of states rights when he was nominated but he will vote with the rainbow crowd and swallow hard for Obama.

It seems to me that Roberts must have been neglected as a child. His parents probably did not love him and daddy was probably never around. Roberts appears to need the approval of others and he seems to go out of his way to get the approval of Obama, his closet lover.

John Roberts once believed, or at least he said he did, that the judiciary was there to interpret not to make up the laws. Roberts basically stated that it is not his job to play the game or make the rules but to make sure those playing the game are following he rules. He did that when he compared judges to baseball umpires: “[I]t’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

Roberts has gone from being just the umpire to also being on the rules committee. Instead of just making sure others follow the rules he is now changing them to suit his master’s needs. Indeed, the umpire has struck out.

Justice Scalia put it most succinctly when he stated in his dissent (it is well worth your time to read the dissent. Scalia basically spells out how it should work in a legal and logical way and he holds little back with regard to how he views his colleagues in the majority):

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. Court Ruling

Scalia is correct. This court has a mandate and it is to protect and save the law now known as SCOTUScare. Obama put Kagan and Sotomayor on the court because they are not jurists they are activists. They do not care what the Constitution says or what is lawful or right as long as their liberal views and desires are taken care of. They are there to ensure the liberal agenda (I should call it the Communist agenda since Jarrett and Obama were raised by Commies and are commies themselves) is upheld the law and the Constitution be damned. Add those two to Buzzy Ginsburg, Breyer and wishy-washy Kennedy and you have the make up of a court that ignores the rule of law. When Roberts joins the mix it equals the downfall of society and the furtherance of communism.

God help them all when the day comes for them to be held accountable. It will be quite unpleasant indeed.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

2 Responses to “John Roberts: The Umpire Strikes Out”

  1. Barbara says:

    Traitors is what they are. Pathetic trash. Maybe the next President will fire them all. Bill Clinton fired many to protect “1” Judge. Well it is time to use the democrats double standards against them, fire them all, maybe we will have a President next time that has the balls to say “your fired”.

    • Big Dog says:

      Clinton removed lower court judges. The SCOTUS can’t be removed unless they are impeached. But the next pres could stack the court by appointing 6 new 8 conservatives to add to the bench. Nothing says there has to be nine. Then the new guys can get through what is right by the Constitution.