Supreme Court Upholds “Tortured” Language Written to Deceive “Ignorant American Voters” To Save Obamacare
Even as the Supreme Court employed pretzel logic, for the second time in three years, to save the oxymoronic “Affordable Care Act,” newly released emails revealed the extent of the deceit used to enact the 2,700-page behemoth known as “Obamacare.”
After going through linguistic contortions, the Court announced its decision in King v. Burwell declaring that the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, that subsidies can be provided to those who are “enrolled through an exchange established by the State,” actually means any exchange established by either a state or the federal government.
The 6-3 majority opinion upholding the deeply unpopular law was again written by Chief Justice John Roberts who saved the law three years ago by finding that the "penalty" provided by the text of the law was, in fact, a tax, contrary to the assertions of Obama's attorneys during the oral arguments before the Court.
Taken together, the Court has decreed that America has now fully entered the era in which words have no real meaning, but can be defined at the will and whim of the government to further whatever aim it sees fit.
The purposeful trickery of the language of the law was revealed last fall when a series of video-taped lectures became public in which health care policy consultant, Jonathan Gruber, who has been credited as an architect of the law, said it was made possible only because American voters are “stupid” and “ignorant.”
At the time, the Obama administration downplayed Gruber’s involvement in drafting the law, and Democratic leaders, such as Sen. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) disavowed even knowing him. The senator is well-known for her comment to the Congress before the vote on the bill, “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”
Gruber, an economist from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, appeared humble and apologetic when called to appear before a Congressional committee to explain the comments, claiming he exaggerated his role to make himself seem more important.
Now the House Oversight Committee has revealed it has 20,000 pages of emails proving Gruber had a significantly more influential role in designing the law than the administration and Pelosi had admitted.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, “His proximity to HHS (Health and Human Services) and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted. There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said.”
The emails reveal that Gruber had extensive and repeated contact both the White House and HHS during the period when the gargantuan law was written, from the time of Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 to the time it was signed in March 2010.
Gruber repeatedly boasted in the video-taped lectures that he helped design the law so that, “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.” The tax credits, or subsidies, were an integral part of securing passage of the bill in Congress.
The Justices have remarked in the past that the sheer length of the act makes reading it a daunting task, with Justice Stephen Breyer admitting, “I haven’t read every word of that, I promise.”
When an attorney suggested that the justices “go through and read it fully,” Justice Antonin Scalia drew laughter when he asked, only partially jokingly, “What happened to the Eighth Amendment?” The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion in the present case arguing that the majority erred in finding that when Congress chose to use the words "state exchange," it actually meant a "state or federal exchange." He was joined in the dissent by Justices Thomas and Alito.