Skip to content

The TREASON of Chief Justice Roberts

Spread the love

Roberts v Scalia

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 suspicious 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. Make no mistake, Roberts did this for the Republicans; it 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 supposed to interpret the law, not make it. What Roberts did was so unconstitutional, violating every principle of judicial interpretation, which illustrates why I decided against becoming a lawyer after studying law. I came to the conclusion that 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 by crossing over the line and writing law, which is only supposed 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 by transforming us into economic slaves where paying your “fair share” means you owe the government, even when you receive no benefit or 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 inserted 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 Obamacare, for he just pulled off the same bullshit. Roberts’ 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 are no State rights, for he is 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 shows he has not been bought and paid for, unlike Roberts regardless of the case. I may not agree with him each and every time, but I respect that he has not been 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.”