The Supreme Court has come out with some real surprises lately, and its decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is one of them.
In a recent ruling, the Court affirmed ACA in a 7-2 ruling, marking the third time that legal attempts to overturn ACA have been denied. During the third attempt, 18 different states and two individuals took their case to the Court, but the vast majority of Justices rejected their arguments.
Which Texas AG Ken Paxton was none too pleased about.
“ObamaCare was sold on a lie to the American people. Its crown jewel – the individual mandate – was unconstitutional when it was enacted and it is still unconstitutional … Yet, seven justices decided to avoid the question of the constitutionality by limiting its decision to a ruling on standing …
If the government is allowed to mislead its citizens, pass a massive government takeover of health care, and yet still survive after Supreme Court review, this spells doom for the principles of federalism and limited government.” [Source: Fox News]
Indeed, Paxton does have a point.
After all, the key argument against ACA since its inception has included the fact that mandating Americans purchase health insurance is quite the government intrusion, particularly in terms of basic rights and liberties.
West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey also indicated his displeasure with the ruling, particularly the Court’s deliberate disengagement with constitutionality issues at stake.
“[West Virginia is] deeply disappointed that the court ducked the question about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate … This case was always about: one, ensuring that individuals could not be coerced into purchasing health insurance against their will; and, two, making the insurance system far more affordable for hard-working Americans …
Too many West Virginians have suffered from skyrocketing premiums and need better, more affordable health care options. We will keep fighting for affordable coverage and against coercive, individual mandates that represent the opposite of freedom.” [Source: Fox News]
Unfortunately, the fat cats in the federal government appear to care less about skyrocketing premiums for health insurance, just as they could care less about skyrocketing drug overdoses taking place across the United States during lockdowns.
Just consider Biden’s rather blatant glee after the Court ruling, in spite of the fact that the ruling was a direct strike against constitutionality.
“The Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land … Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is a major victory for all Americans benefiting from this groundbreaking and life-changing law.” [Source: Fox News]
“The law of the land,” huh?
So, the most prolifically anti-police administration in recent memory is suddenly concerned about “the law of the land?”
Apparently, respect is only given to a “law of the land” that also simultaneously violates constitutional rights; at minimum, a strong enough constitutional argument could be made to seriously call into question the federal government’s serious overreach, which was initiated by the lovely years of the Obama administration.
Even worse, Obama himself is openly gloating about Biden “finishing the job” that his administration started, which illustrates the degree to which Democrats have become completely and totally inebriated on their own power.
And, speaking of self-aggrandizing debauchery, many Democrats are likely still chomping at the bit, salivating over the opportunity to potentially pack the Court.
Which just may happen, especially if Manchin keeps (crazily) contemplating lowering the requirements for voting in the Senate, from 60 to who knows how few.
“I looked back…when it went from 67 votes to 60 votes, and also what was happening, what made them think that it needed to change. So I’m open to looking at it, I’m just not open to getting rid of the filibuster, that’s all.” [Source: Newsweek]
Oh, ok. “That’s all,” huh?
So, Manchin may just be open to lowering the vote threshold to a simple majority, which in turn would result in even more chaos for the nation with Democrats at the helm, including the possibility of Court packing.
Given the various decisions that the Court has made in recent months, one can only imagine what kind of decisions the Court might start pursuing if it is successfully “packed” as the Democrats would like for it to be.
After all, the Court flat out refused to even entertain any issues regarding potential election irregularities, in spite of the fact that ballot audits continue on to this day across more than one state.
Author: Ofelia Thornton