Connect with us


US Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare … Again




|| By FITSNEWS || Willfully ignoring the letter of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the administration of Barack Obama can continue to levy taxes and dole out benefits in thirty-six states which explicitly rejected the creation of health care exchanges.

In so ruling, the court not only ignored the clear language – and explicit intent – of Obamacare, it overturned multiple lower court rulings striking down the taxes and subsidies.

The case – Halbig v. Burwell – addressed whether Obama’s notoriously corrupt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had the authority to levy taxes in the thirty-six states which chose to let the federal government administer their health care exchanges.

Why shouldn’t they?  Well, Obamacare’s authors wrote their law in such a way as to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges.

“They want to sort of squeeze the states to do it,” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber (this guy) said.  “I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

Exactly … which is exactly what the law said.

“The legal principles involved in Halbig are simple: If Obamacare is to be taken at its word – then the law’s subsidies and penalties do not apply in two-thirds of the country ,” Nathan Mehrens of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) wrote last year.  “And if that’s the case, then Obamacare is a ‘Dead Law Walking’ – incapable of sustaining itself without hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending.”

Lower courts agreed with Mehrens’ analysis.  And still … Obama defied them.



And now the highest court in the land is covering for him … again.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” chief justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority.


That’s pure editorial commentary … and the last time we checked, Roberts’ job was to interpret the law, not ignore its explicit language and clearly stated intent.

Obama and his allies in Congress wrote their law with the deliberate and expressly communicated intention of forcing states to bend to their will.  The states didn’t do that, though.  They said “no.”

Now thirty-six of these states are being subjected to what amounts to the greatest example of taxation without representation in American history.

Of course whether you support Obamacare (as 43.6 percent of Americans do, according to Real Clear Politics) or oppose it (as 51.4 percent do) … the issue here is much more fundamental.

“This ruling is bigger than Obamacare,” we wrote last year.  “It is about whether the laws passed in our nation’s capital are worth the paper they’re printed on.”

Clearly, they are not …

The latest Obamacare ruling comes three years after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s right to tax

“(Obamacare)’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably characterized as a tax,” a narrow majority of the Justices concluded in that ruling. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Obama repeatedly claimed his signature legislation was not a tax hike.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in September 2009.

Years ago, we warned that Obama’s law was going to be disastrous for the American economy – and we were right (see HEREHEREHERE and HERE).  As a candidate in 2008, Obama projected annual savings of $2,500 per family by the end of his first term in office – yet when his first term ended, there had been a $2,400 increase  in insurance costs.

And those costs are still climbing.

But as dire as Obamacare’s economic impact has been, this latest ruling rescuing it … and rescuing “Republicans” from having to bail it out … is far more damaging to the American Republic.

It is quite simply the costliest, most indefensible, most egregious, most flagrant rebuke of the rule of law we’ve ever seen.