Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Benedict Arnold.

Irony can be found at its finest when an individual displays their hypocrisy with a complete and total lack of self awareness of their hypocrisy.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Benedict Arnold.

Compare and contrast that with.

Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Benedict Arnold.

Two decisions render by the same hypocrite one single day apart.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia delivered what is perhaps one of the most scathing rebuttals in Supreme Court history in his dissent.

Justice Antonin Scalia is known for his sharp wit and even sharper pen. He pulled no punches in his dissent today from the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell allowing the Obama administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through the federal exchange.
Here are nine highlights:

1. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

2. “This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

3. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

4. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

5. “The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)’”

6. “Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means ‘established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.’ This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”

7. “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that 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 ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

8. “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. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”

9. “Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.”

Not since March 6, 1857 when a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, has the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision that was so profoundly and obviously flawed. Chief Justice John Robert’s, aka Chief Justice Benedict Arnold is destined to go down in history as one of if not the only Supreme court Chief Justice to garner a greater degree of disgust. To say that the current Chief Justice has disgraced himself and generations of the Supreme court to come is in fact a monumental understatement.

King v Burwell is the Dred Scott of our generation, and even more disgraceful than the original Dred Scott because hief Justice Roger B. Taney the luxury of history to inform him of how disgraceful such a decision was.

EDIT:  The Schadenfreude it burns, it burns…

Chief Justice John Roberts not only dissented from the Court’s ruling but also read a summary of his dissent from the bench.  It was the first time that he has done so in his ten Terms on the Court, and it signaled how strongly he disagreed with the Court’s ruling.  Roberts forcefully criticized the majority for side-stepping the democratic process and declaring that same-sex couples have the right to marry when, in his view, such a right “has no basis in the Constitution.”  The Court’s decision, he complained, “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.”  “Just who,” Roberts laments, “do we think we are?”  The other three Justices echoed Roberts’s sentiments, sometimes in even more strident terms:  Justice Antonin Scalia characterized the decision as a “judicial Putsch” and suggested that, before he signed on to an opinion like the majority’s, “I would hide my head in a bag.”


Is Glenn Beck about to reveal the biggest political and legal scandal in US History?

Radio rodeo clown Glenn Beck is threatening, or promising, depending on what you think of Glenn Beck, to blow the American political power structure to smithereens. He is claiming that a whistle blower has provided him with an incredibly damaging document. A document that according to Beck proves that the Obama Administration used blackmail to influence Chief Justice John Roberts in his decision regarding Obamacare.

Beck is threatening, or promising that he will revel the contents of and the document within the next 24 hours.

Glenn Beck threatens reveal that will take down “the whole power structure”


At the top of his radio broadcast today,Glenn Beck promised that, within the next twenty four hours, hisThe Blaze network will break a story that is going to rock the nation and take down the entire power structure.

Beck refused to elaborate, except to say that an anonymous whistle-blower, whom Beck claims is refusing to come forward out of fear of being killed, had provided him with a one-page document. Beck claimed, however, that “this one document would take down pretty much the whole power structure, pretty much everything.”

I’ve heard Glenn Beck make some outrageous claims in the past that well, amounted to pretty much nothing. Will this be another of Glenn’s infamous “Opening Al Capone’s Vault” moments?

I guess we’ll all just have to stay tuned to find out, though, personally I doubt Beck has what he claims he does.

‘In this instance,

With these infamous words Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts crucifies the rule of law in the United States of America.

‘In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase’…

Perhaps someone should be asking the Chinese or Wikileaks, exactly what is it that the Obamanation Administration has on Roberts that they are applying so effectively as blackmail.

Why people have trouble trusting the Police.

Its no secret that in the last few decades that the American people have become increasingly distrustful of the Law Enforcement Community. Video’s show up almost daily of the police abusing their authority, usually in the form of excessive and unwarranted violence. If they aren’t using the Asset forfeiture laws to legally steal from citizens, they’re harassing innocent citizen in other ways.

Regardless of what you may think of the current state of America’s various marijuana laws, they are in fact becoming more liberal. The police supposedly are tasked with upholding those laws. Exactly how they chose to “Uphold” those laws however does seem to be some small matter of concern.

Enter the Santa Ana Police Department…. California has a pretty liberal marijuana law rather infamously known by the State Bill under which marijuana is marginally legal in California. SB 420…. (its 4:20, time to toke dude)…

Here, the Santa Ana Police department can be seen raiding a lawfully operated Medical Marijuana Dispensary. They harass lawful customers, then proceed to attempt to destroy the Dispensaries surveillance system, EPIC fail on their part. Then they can be seen sampling the Dispensaries wares, in the form of eatable marijuana products. The physical damage they inflict on this legal and lawfully operated Medical Marijuana Dispensary is utterly unconscionable.

Whether you agree with the legalization of marijuana or not is not the issue here, what is at issue here is, this was a legal and lawfully operated Medical Marijuana Dispensary, and Medical Marijuana is legal in the state of California.

I leave you with the words of Christian author C.S. Lewis, one of his most prescient quotes. What C.S. Lewis says here has in large part come to symbolize why Americans have become so distrustful of the Law Enforcement Community.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis —

Fair Accountability Amendment.

Fair Accountability Amendment.

Provision 1:

All revenue expending bills must be voted on by every registered voter.

Provision 2:

Only those registered voters who vote to approve any new revenue will be required to pay the new revenue/tax.

Provision 3:

Anyone voting against any new revenue generating bill shall be exempt from that new revenue generating bill/tax.

Provision 4:

Any registered voter who fails to vote shall be deemed to have voted in support of any new Revenue generating bill/tax.

Provision 5:

No individual shall be allowed to cast a vote without providing a valid Social Security Number.

Provision 6:

Any individual caught casting a vote without a valid Social Security Number shall be fined not less than $100,000.00 dollars and incarcerated for not less than 5 years in a federal Prison.