After yesterday's ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States made yet another ruling in which it shows that it's membership has no regard for the Constitution or it's own purpose. Just yesterday Justice Roberts released a ruling in which he said:
(e) Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. Pp. 20–21.
Get that? It doesn't matter what the legislation actually SAYS. It's what we think the congress thought when they voted on it and we should be concerned about the "Calamities" that would ensue if we did our jobs.
Now with the gay marriage ruling we see this from Roberts:
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should
be of no concern to us.
Under the Constitution, judges
have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized co
urts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment....
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage
to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu
-
ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun
-
damental right to marry does
not include a right to make
a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s
decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has
persisted in every culture throughout human history can
hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does
not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a
State are free to expand ma
rriage to include same-sex
couples, or to retain the historic definition.
And this is his dissent!!
He is using the same language and even references from the dissent in yesterday's ruling to justify is current dissent. How can a neutral judge use two very different lines of reasoning on the very same set of issues? Either the court cannot legislate and think up what is and isn't good law or it can.
It's pretty clear here that the SCOTUS is a corrupted institution that can't keep it's thinking straight and is hell bent on ruling on emotion rather than the law. Peeking at Alito's dissent I saw many references to other countries and the past, but n
ot ONE mention of English common law that is the basis of common law in the US. At this point we can stop saying the US is a country based on the rule of law and say that it is ruled by popular opinion.
Edit: Alito did not mention English common law but Roberts did. For that reason I have struck the sentence from the original. Also Thomas (wow...I'm referencing Thomas...) deep dives into Blackstone, the Magna Carta and the rights of Englishmen.
