The importance of Congress seems to be constantly diminished by the self expanding powers of other segments of our government. Interesting that these parts of our government that are garnering more power are loaded with the unelected. Appointed czars create regulations that behave as law, the Federal Reserve now is the micro manager of the stock market, and the Supreme Court which has spread its wings to now rewrite clear legislative language that existed during deliberation and voting. It seems that their approval of the legislation’s intent determines the effort to save the legislation. Lost are the limits of their power and the charge of their position.

“…to ignore or rewrite congressional language that is not at all ambiguous but is inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created….that it is a judicial function to construe laws in ways that make them perform better, meaning more efficiently, than they would as written by Congress.”

The Supreme Court does the final editing of legislation. They are guided by intent, and disregard the crafted language of the bill. If this is an overreach of powers, from whom do we seek remedy? (Nullification by the States leaps to mind.)

George Will notes,

“The Roberts Doctrine facilitates what has been for a century progressivism’s central objective, the overthrow of the Constitution’s architecture. The separation of powers impedes progressivism by preventing government from wielding uninhibited power. Such power would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.”

When it was necessary for the fines mentioned in the bill to be redesignated as “tax," Roberts obeyed the dog whistle. Disregarded is the truth that the legislation would not have passed a Congressional vote with that word, “tax."

Ordinary words explained and held up in their traditional Queen’s English definition and use, in the process of passing the legislation surrounding these words, are remarkably held as ambiguous and are reframed and redefined by the SCOTUS. They have assumed the duty of rewriting legislation to meet some convenient notion of the intent of the legislation.

The SCOTUS ruled that “Congress intended for subsidies to be available regardless of whether the exchange is set up by the State or the Federal government.”

Really? Jonathan Gruber, one of the authors and architects, was adamant about the condition of State exchanges. The condition of States determining the exchanges is mentioned seven times in the bill. The argument that this is merely a scribe’s error is hollow.

But Congress also intended for families to save money, for healthcare costs to come down and for those who did not have access to health insurance (for some unmentioned reasoning) to rush and sign up for Obamacare. (Over 10 million have signed up, but recall the 40 Million uninsured?) Did Robert’s not notice the intent of the bill is unachieved?

Saving poorly written legislation is his justification, yet where is Robert's concern for the undelivered benefits of the law? Families saving $2500 a year? Uninsured receiving insurance? Costs of healthcare lowered? Keeping our plan and doctor?

Roberts missed an opportunity to “judge” that the legislation isn’t working and adjust his ruling. Is that beyond his powers? Yes. Just as rewording unambiguous language to “make it work” because he senses the “intent” is also beyond his authority.

Not only was the legislation poorly worded, it is poorly constructed and ineffective. They saved poorly worded legislation, because they “felt” the intent. Too bad Roberts didn’t notice that the legislation does not deliver what it promised.

James Longstreet