Menu

OBAMACARE? CALL IT ROBERTSCARE. CHIEF PRIESTESS OF THE US SUPREME COURT DOES IT AGAIN!

The coven-like robed ones were at it again. By a 6-3 vote, the chief scribes of the United States Supreme Court ruled the 111th Congress intended to give any qualified American property in bank credits to be spent specifically on buying an medical bills paying insurance offered by sellers of such products.

The tie-breaking voters included the Supreme Court chief, the High Priestess John Roberts. And with today's ruling in King v. Burwell, once again Roberts proved to the world, he doesn't understand English nor English with respect to law.

This time, those suing over Obamacare claimed the 111th Congress intended to pay for part or all of any American's medical bills insurance, but only in those states of the USA where state legislators established state-run web sites for residents of their states to buy insurance. They made this claim because the writers of the law wrote the phrase "established by the state."

In his affirmative ruling, chief priestess Roberts wrote, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former and avoids the latter."

In short, Roberts believes his job is to interpret law if a law claims it could do something good regardless of how it is written. Roberts sets a dangerous precedent for all Americans. Henceforth Congress could pass laws and then have their agencies claim extra-law authority merely by claiming Congress intended for this power or the expected results.


428908_354943234574162_569207220_n.jpgBack in 2012, Roberts was the guy who sided with others to decree Obamacare was legal. In that ruling, though Roberts stated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution cannot compel any individual to buy anything, Roberts claimed the taxing authority of Congress somehow can compel anyone to buy anything.

At the time, many Roberts apologists claim that Roberts was right because Roberts said the IRS would be the agency to collect the fines and therefore what would get collected would be taxes and not fines. What a convenient fiction that is.

The essence of a fine is this: If you do A against law and are caught, you must pay B.  The essence of a tax is this: Because you are doing A, you must pay us B, which is a percentage of A.

The purpose of a fine is to stop anyone from doing A. The purpose of a tax is to share in profits generated by doing A without having invested any capital first.

When law givers fine a factory owner for polluting a river, they do so to stop the factory owner from polluting the river, ever. When law givers tax profits of the factory owner, they want a cut of his profits. They're not trying to stop the factory owner from selling anything produced in his factor. Likewise, law givers aren't stopping the factory owner from selling his factory and taking up earning income by another means, say as a singer and a dancer.

With Obamacare, the effect of the Roberts ruling should be clear. Congress isn't sharing in anyone's income regardless of how they earn that income. Rather, Congress is fining everyone caught without medical bills insurance.

Congress is fining you for doing something — living without specifically structured medical bills insurance— rather than taxing you — sharing in your income regardless of what you are doing.  To claim it as a tax and not what it is, a fine, is to throw out about 715 years of English-based jurisprudence.

State legislators fine you when you drive (live) without car liability paying insurance (medical bills insurance). To see Robertscare any other way is to deceive oneself.

The word fine entered into English about the year 1200 from Old French speakers meaning death, fee, payment. By the mid 1300s, the word was being said to mean sum of money paid for exemption from punishment or to compensate for injury.

The word tax entered into English in the early 1300s from Anglo-French speakers to mean obligatory contribution levied by a sovereign.

So the next time you must pay a speeding ticket, by the way Roberts believes, you are not being fined. Rather, you are being taxed. You are not being fined.

Americans should be compelled to buy all kinds of products at least according to the tortured faux-logic thought by the United States Supreme Court creepy robe wearers — Roberts,  Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.

  • All Americans need places to sleep. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves facing homelessness. Requiring Americans to buy housingcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy housingcare insurance.
  • All Americans need legal representation. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves facing criminal charges, civil suits or jail time. Requiring Americans to buy legalcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy legalcare insurance.
  • All Americans need skills to compete in a globalized economy. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves with obsolete skills and not enough cash to pay for learning new skills. Requiring Americans to buy higher educationcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy higher educationcare insurance. 
  • All Americans need fun and recreation for proper mental health. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves without enough cash to pay for tickets to amusement parks, sporting events, concerts. Requiring Americans to buy funcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy funcare insurance. 
  • All Americans need to eat. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves without cash to pay for food.  Requiring Americans to buy foodcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy foodcare insurance.
  • All Americans need to wear clothes. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves without enough cash to pay for clothes. Requiring Americans to buy clothescare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy clothescare insurance.

John Roberts might have been awarded summa cum laude as an undergrad from Harvard and magna cum laude Harvard Law School, but Roberts is clueless about the concepts words label. In short, he does not get meaning. And if that isn't the case, then the Chief Priestess is corrupt and immoral.

Power. It corrupts everyone. Alas, it wasn't enough to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court for John Glover Roberts. Nor was it enough to be crowned Chief Justice.