Reprinted from Smirking Chimp
The Supreme Court has turned the US from a republic into a Constitutional monarchy.
Last week, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear yet another conservative-fueled challenge to Obamacare.
This time, the attack on Obamacare focuses on the phrasing of one sentence in the Affordable Care Act that talks about who can receive subsidies under the health-care law.
That phrasing is in Section 36B of the Affordable Care Act, which gives the government the power to subsidize health-care plans, "which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State."
Basically, as it stands now, US citizens who sign up for health-care insurance under Obamacare through the federal exchange receive a subsidy to help pay for that insurance.
However, the plaintiffs in the case are arguing that, based on the wording of the particular clause, Americans who sign up for Obamacare through the federal exchange AREN'T eligible for the subsidies; only Americans who sign up through state-run exchanges are.
Subsidies are a major aspect of Obamacare, and if the conservative justices on the Supreme Court were to rule against them in this case, millions of US citizens will lose the health-care coverage they got under Obamacare.
The frivolous nature of this challenge to Obamacare is pretty clear, and you would think that the Supreme Court would recognize that, and would have refused to hear the case.
But, given the history of the Roberts' Supreme Court, we really shouldn't be surprised that the court decided to hear the case.
After all, the Roberts' court is synonymous with the judicial over-reach that's turned the US into a Constitutional monarchy.
Over the past several years, we've seen time and time again how the conservative justices of the Roberts Court are willing to engage in judicial activism and overreach.
As the Alliance for Justice points out, the Roberts Court has routinely taken up cases that is has no right hearing.
In a report titled, "The Roberts Court and Judicial Overreach," the Alliance for Justice writes that, "The Supreme Court generally grants certiorari -- that is, agrees to hear a case appealed to it -- where there is an unsettled question of law or where the circuit courts of appeal have split on the proper interpretation of a given law. In recent years, however, the Court has taken a number of cases outside these parameters, which, in almost all cases, results in rulings favoring corporate interests."
But the Roberts Court's judicial over-reach doesn't stop there.
The court has also routinely answered legal questions that weren't even presented to it, and that were entirely unnecessary to decide the case before them.