If ever there was an example of judicial activism and a court legislating from the bench, look no further than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion on Obamacare.
The Supreme Court of the United States became a de facto legislature when it decided that Obamacare is constitutionally grounded in Congress’ powers to tax — in spite of the fact that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress who carried the bill insisted that it was not.
The Obamacare legislation as written does not set forth that it is established as part of Congress’ powers to levy taxes. If it had, there never would have been a challenge to the high court.
The ruling raises a number of questions:
If the bill is silent as to the funding of it, how is it possible for the court to interpret the intent of Congress?
Isn’t it the job of the Supreme Court to remand the bill back to Congress for further consideration as the basis upon which the bill is sustained constitutionally?
Where does the Supreme Court get the power to act in the place of Congress?
The court routinely remands cases back to inferior courts for further determination.
Isn’t that what the Supreme Court did just the other day on immigration, when they remanded Arizona’s immigration case back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration?
Site deveoped by Deb D Web Creations