The TREASON of Chief Justice Roberts

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/34089



The TREASON of Chief Justice Roberts

Posted on June 28, 2015 by Martin Armstrong


The King v. Burwell upholding Obamacare is a political decision, not law, and it reveals the distinct difference between Scalia, who many liberals hate, and Roberts who rules according to the political winds. This has gone way beyond the question of Obamacare being right or wrong. It is raising serious concerns that Chief Justice Roberts is most likely taking secret phone calls off the record based upon his reasoning which is anything but consistent and extremely suspect from every legal perspective. Roberts did not do this on his own because secretly the Republicans also did not want Obamacare overruled despite what they tell their constituents. Roberts did this for the Republicans – make no mistake – this was a bought and paid for decision to save the Republican party most likely at the request of Boehner, who Roberts swore in as Speaker.
A judge by the very foundation of law is ONLY suppose to interpret the law, not make it. What Roberts did was so unconstitutional violating every principle of judicial interpretation, this illustrates why I decided against becoming a lawyer after studying law. I came to the conclusion it was only the whim of a judge and not really a legal system.
The primary doctrine is known as Strict Interpretation. In other words, a judge is only supposed to strictly interpret the words of a statute or else he is committing TREASON to the constitution buy crossing over the line and writing law which is only suppose to be done by Congress who is elected by the people whereas the judge is not.
The failure to abide by Strict Construction threatens every aspect of a free society. It was the Supreme Court who subjected all Americans to worldwide taxation transforming us into economic slaves were paying your “fair share” means you owe the government even when you receive no benefit and live overseas because you remain forever the property of the state which was exactly what the American Revolution was supposed to end. The court simply interested the tax code and ruled that Congress did not exempt income from overseas so they must have included it. That is NOT Strict Construction, that was legislation as corrupt, evil, and unconstitutional as it comes.
Roberts committed TREASON by upholding Obamcare for he just pulled off the same bullshit. Robert’s decision violates every principle of legal interpretation for here I must concur with Scalia who correctly points out how confounding the majority’s twisted logic to uphold Obamacare really is. Scalia wrote that the court “accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State” but then “continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.’” This analysis Scalia dubbed, “Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!”
The plain language of the statute made it clear that it would provide for an “Exchange by the State”. There was no mention of Federal. This reveals Roberts’ dishonesty for he has to be taking direction behind the curtain. He altered the statute stating that his interpretation is that Congress meant to include the Federal Government as well. In the Gay Marriage case, he dissents under the pretense of State Rights. Here there is no State Rights for he now suddenly raising the Federal Government to the level of a State. Guess Puerto Rico and Washington, DC are also really states under Roberts’ reasoning.
Scalia speaks his mind and clearly show he is not bought and paid for as is Roberts, regardless of the case. I may not agree with him each and every time, but I respect that he is not bought and paid for and he is consistent with his interpretation, although sometimes he may focus on the wrong aspect. He wrote about Roberts’ decisions:
“… this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”