Free Markets, Free People

Because we (SCOTUS) want it that way

Apparently they’re no longer a judicial body which weighs the arguments, compares them against the law and finds for the intent of the Constitution.  Or said another way, the real Constitution is dead – long live the “living Constitution” that is full of goodies for which others pay.

How do I know this?  Easy:

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “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.”

Or said another way, to hell with law and the Constitution, the 6 of us have decided this is a good thing and we’ll read it any way we want too.  Pay up, suckers.

I saw where someone said the court finally moved left.

Folks the court moved left 10 years ago with Kelo.

It’s just taken a while for some people to realize that.

As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”

And, we couldn’t.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to Because we (SCOTUS) want it that way

  • When the law becomes…or looks like it has become to most people…caprice, there is no law.

    We are in VERY troubled waters.

  • Supreme Court confirms – words don’t have meaning.

  • Yeah, when the Court’s reasoning is, “Looked at in plain English, this can’t be right; however it’s OUR JOB TO MAKE IT RIGHT, so we’ll call the “plain English” merely “ambiguous” and then we can stuff our Preferred Understanding (“Up is Down, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength”) into the gap where the “Plain English” used to be, and VOILA! we of SCOTUS just legislated-from-the-bench again!”

    Two nice quotes from comments at
    ” The SCOTUS has fully embraced its role as super-legislature. ”
    ” Clearly there is no ruling this court could produce that would embarrass it. ”
    (I just HAVE to laugh, or else I’d wind up crying…)

  • We are a constitutional de-centralized multi-body republic. A qualified republic by more than the few things I mentioned. A democracy is direct voting, a republic is voting through representatives. A republic could as easily be a majority rule situation just potentially tempered away from the day to day fickleness of the mob. We have a body that is a regional republic and a body that is a population based republic. And a President that’s a hybrid of regional and population. Our separate bodies were setup against each other to prevent the desent into collusion that would lead to dictatorship. But ultimately the individual was protected by the Constitution.

    Anyway, I’m not sure representative approach is all that much better than direct with what are at best clowns and and worst enemies of liberty taking those spots.

    I think shit went wrong in a few areas
    1) allowing cross-boundary influencing of politicians. I you live in place X, you should only be able to contribute to races that have X in their district. Along these lines, the direct election of Senators for a glacial 6 year term. Basically you’ll still have corrupt politicians and cronies but the extent of the corruption will be limit. Wallstreet banks looking for a bailout will have 2 senators solidly in their pockets, not 60.
    2) The corruption of the 4th estate into a group thinking, agenda ridden collective.
    3) The last nail will be the lack of a mechanism to rectify a corrupt Supreme Court without rendering it impudent in the process.

    • 4) having to have “standing” to sue.
      5) sovereign immunity from lawsuits
      6) voters dependent on government checks.

      I think we will attempt to have a constitutional convention when 33 state legislatures agree, and then the progressives will declare a civil war because they would lose power in that scenario.

      • Unfortunately at this time, that would disastrously backfire. They are much more equipped to hijack the process than the process could weather. Not enough people are awake and angry enough to prevent the hijacking.

  • You know there are probably a couple words that we need to add to the second amendment while we’re at it.

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear the best possible contemporary arms, shall not be infringed.”

    I think that’s in there, actually I’m sure of it. It WAS after all EXACTLY what the founders meant even if the most natural reading allows idiots to think it’s talking about hunting and/or the National Guard.

    “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.”

    There’s others we need to see the new words in too.
    the 1st, 4th and 5th come immediately to mind.

    • So true. OF COURSE the intent was that the people be armed so as to be able to go toe to toe with the army if that came to pass.

      Because the founders did in fact go toe to toe with the army of the ruling authority.

      • Oh no dude, it means…maybe…single shot shot guns with no extended ‘clips’ or ‘calibers’ (whatever these idiots think THAT means), filled with Heavy Dove Load (which is really way to technical….) shot, to allow the ‘well regulated militia’ to go hunting small birds (that no one really likes) at no more than 40 yards (which is also way to technical).

        But we’d really rather no guns, mkay? Cuz gunsrbad and when egged on by flags they kill people.

  • Who thought bringing another ACA item in front of Roberts was a good idea? His last decision wasn’t a typo. He was obviously a political agent for someone or something that believes in what ACA does. The more things you bring in front of him to break the ACA, the more damaged our constitution will become.

  • SCOTUS makes gay marriage law of the land. I just assume Roberts invoked commerce clause

    • Roberts dissented for some reason.

      • Because it’s passage was a lock with the rest and he needed to balance his ACA activism to not make him too obvious. If you talk with a lefty they will swear the bench is skewed right, Roberts pretends to be right just enough so the propaganda arm of the left can pretend these decisions are from a politically balanced court.

  • I haven’t been able to find Sousse on the Florida map.
    Since it was a beach I assume this Tunisia place is in Florida, unless it’s in Hawaii or California? Should I look in those states?
    Google maps keeps taking me to North Africa, but that can’t be right because Obama said these massacres only happen frequently in the United States.

    Also, was that beheading thing in France caused by that Islamic flag? Is it work place violence related?
    When will the President clear this up for us!

  • “Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan…”

    Perhaps Mr. Roberts missed other statutory plans (and testimony from Gruber et al.) that statutory plans involving such financial coercion are not uncommon. One example, “No Child Left Behind”, requires states to perform certain actions before they can receive federal funding. Mr. Roberts’ argument is nonsense.

    • “Mr. Roberts’ argument is nonsense.”

      Heh, heh.

      Of course it is.

      His argument is Newspeak for “The Supreme Soviet of the USSA has directed us to find this abomination legal …and so we shall. Voila! “Established by the States” now means “established (or not) by the states (or not)”. Y’know, — Just Because. Now – bring us the next case on the docket!!”