U.S. Supreme Court conceptually rewrites Obamacare law in order to uphold it.


It is a frequent criticism of judges that they are “activists”–politicians in judicial clothing. The reality, however, is that the judiciary is amazingly passive and tends to bend over backward to uphold the ridiculous, unconstitutional, and intrusive measures and enactments of the executive and legislative branches.

Today, June 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the extension of Obamacare subsidies into states that did not set up their own “exchanges”–DESPITE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE(S) INDICATING THAT Obamacare subsidies would not apply in such states.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, penned this ridiculous statement: “In this instance, the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

Justice Scalia dissented, and said to an audience at the Supreme Court building, “We really should start calling this law Scotus-care,” to laughter from the audience.