The Court's decision reflects the philosophy the judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people's decision to give Congress "[all] legislative Powers" enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.Later;
Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress "meant [it] to operate."I.e., the majority is intellectually dishonest. Oh, and by the way, asks Scalia, how do they know what Congress intended if not by the actual words Congress used in the Act itself? Rhetorical question aside;
More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers.Those of a certain age will recognize the phrase we've bolded above, as a popular slogan during the Watergate controversy that ended with the POTUS, Richard Nixon, having to resign from his office before he was impeached. But, it gets worse;
Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court's claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act "does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation."It is a mark of the self-control of Antonin Scalia that he does not become any more indignant over that astonishingly naked power grab (and blatant violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers) than;
It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law.
Just ponder the significance of the Court's decision to take matters into its own hands. ....What a parody today's decision makes of [Alexander] Hamilton's assurances [in Federalist 78] to the people of New York: "The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over...the purse, no direction...of the wealth of society, and can tke no active resolution whatever.Well Jack Lew fixed that guy, didn't he?