But what context and structure is he referring to which compels a departure from reality?
According to Roberts, “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.”
So Roberts is again violating his duties by ruling on what he believes the intent was when one political party unilaterally passed an act they hadn’t bothered to read. And in coming to his conclusion, Roberts has had to ignore Jonathan Gruber’s plainspoken admissions that the Act was written to deliberately punish states which did not establish their own healthcare exchanges. The “pertinent statutory phrase” was clear, deliberate, and the exact opposite of what Roberts is now saying.
But let’s go a step further. Contrary to Roberts’ opinion, the Affordable Care Act was written to destroy health insurance markets, so that when the full implementation of Obamacare fails (as it is already doing), no market solution will exist on which to fall back. The only choice will be single-payer socialized medicine, which has always been the goal of Obama and his minions – not to improve healthcare, but to solidify absolute control over our lives.
This is a sad day for any Americans who still looked to the Supreme Court as a possible counterbalance to the wild excesses of the Executive branch of government. That ship has clearly sailed and, with the mournful strains of “Nearer My God To Thee” echoing in the darkness, sunk from sight.