@RBPundit SCOTUS declares the law to mean whatever the frak Obama wants it to be, f- the rule of law
— Loren (@LorenSethC) June 25, 2015
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Obama administration in the King v. Burwell case, which challenged the legality of federal subsidies for Obamacare.
Among the six SCOTUS justices voting in favor of the Obama administration was John Roberts, whose opinion shows that he ruled on the intent of those who wrote the law rather than what was written:
Roberts: "A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan." pic.twitter.com/1A3fhHfFBS
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 25, 2015
Shorter Roberts: The intent of legislation (even though that is still in question) is more important than its text. https://t.co/L26AwHZqnb
— Matthew DesOrmeaux ⚜ (@authoridad) June 25, 2015
This, in technical legal terms, is jibberjabber. https://t.co/WNLJAlKjMI
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 25, 2015
Roberts concludes: "Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt."
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 25, 2015
If “intent” is all that matters, why kill trees for all the paper on which to write laws down if they can just be “interpreted” differently later on?
The plain meaning of laws Congress writes are not so, when inconvenient. One questions the efficacy of written law. https://t.co/6mxLDWX8Lq
— demonsheep (@demonsheep) June 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/614074297733251072
Curious to see where this new "law means whatever the party in power thinks it means" principle goes.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) June 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/ainsworthbill71/status/614081140966735872
Words like "the state" mean whatever the government says they mean. America's been Grubered. https://t.co/PwBofuyzZv #ACA
— Razor (@hale_razor) June 25, 2015
This is very good news for people who don't think things should mean what they say.
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) June 25, 2015
Which describes many modern folks. RT @jpodhoretz: This is very good news for people who don't think things should mean what they say.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/KristinaRibali/status/614076485511458816
@KristinaRibali That is a great question..wonder what is next?
— AmericanRedneck (@RedneckThink) June 25, 2015
Justice Scalia perfectly summed up the implications of Roberts’ reasoning behind his decision.