Why did the Chief Justice CHEAT to save ObamaCare?

by Doug Book,  staff writer

Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the specific language of congress by claiming in his ObamaCare ruling that the penalty which the lawmakers had clearly attached to the individual mandate was actually a tax. It was the only way in which the Affordable Care Act could be saved, for the Court rejected the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause defenses as constitutional grounds for the existence of the law.  

By “penciling in” the tax language necessary to satisfy his own requirement of constitutionality, Roberts behaved no differently from any liberal, activist judge so often criticized by conservatives for judicial malfeasance; that is, he cheated rather than rule against a personally favored piece of legislation.  

The question is WHY? WHY did the Chief Justice defraud the Court and the American public rather than rule ObamaCare unconstitutional?

In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A (the individual mandate) is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”  (1)

No, Mr. Chief Justice. Section 5000A may be reasonably re-written BY CONGRESS as a tax, but it may not be READ that way because that is NOT the way in which congress WROTE it!  A great many laws may be reasonably re-written into something they are not, thus bringing them into line with the personal views of justice, propriety or constitutionality held by the judge preforming the artful edit. But that is not the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice.

As Justice Scalia writes in his dissent, “…Although this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of the statute…or judicially rewriting it.”  In short, the Supreme Court must not “… rewrite [a] statute to be what it is not.” (1)

So why did the Chief Justice do just that? Was it because:

1.) Roberts is so adamant about going down in history, he is willing to do it by making a ruling devastating to the liberty of the American people?

2.) Roberts is in reality a conservative activist? Knowing a majority of Americans favor the end of ObamaCare and its creators, he believed his ruling would rouse conservatives across the nation to the defeat of Obama and repeal of the law?

3.) Roberts actually believed what he did to be right and proper?

Chief Justice Roberts cunningly transformed the ObamaCare individual mandate penalty into a tax and then chose to ignore the necessity of defining the type of tax he had created. After all, giving a name to the tax would have required Roberts show Congress had the constitutional authority to impose and collect it!

Exactly why he did all of this we may never know. If by reason of arrogance or misdirected activism, it would be alarming. If because he actually thought it right, it would be terrifying. After all, this man might be the chief justice for another 3 decades!

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative use this link:


To read more use this link:

(1) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Further reading


To read  stories exposing the Democrats as the anti- American thugs they have been for 200 years, get your copy of Coach’s new book: Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at: http://crooksthugsandbigots.com 

 In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. 

What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below

Be Sociable, Share!

8 thoughts on “Why did the Chief Justice CHEAT to save ObamaCare?”

  1. Coach, here is where Justice Roberts fumbled the ball imo. Regardless that Roberts referenced the Gibbons v. Ogden case in the Obamacare opinion, Roberts seemingly ignored two statements in the Gibbons opinion which clearly indicate that Congress has no constitutional authority to address public healthcare.

    In fact, note that the first statement below clarifies, in a single sentence, that not only is public healthcare a state power issue, sovereign state powers to address public healthcare protected by the 10th Amendment, but also that Congress has no constitutional authority to address intrastate commerce issues; FDR's activist justices got the Commerce Clause wrong in Wickard v. Filburn.

    "State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases added)."  —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    In other words, Congress cannot make laws to lay taxes or establish penalties in the name of intrastate public healthcare any more than it can make laws regulating 1st Amendment protected religious expression and freedom of press.

    Sadly, until the states decide to delegate to Congress via constitutional amendment the spetific power to tax and spend in the name of public healthcare, the federal government's unconstitutional power grab concerning Obamacare is stalling the states from establishing their own healthcare programs, evidenced by Massachusetts' RomneyCare.  Article V of the Constitution is the best kept secret of the unconstitutionally big federal government imo.

  2. The conservatives should just announce that while they appreciate the ruling on the theoretical law Chief Justice Roberts spoke of, it has no bearing on the actual law sent to him, and therefore will be ignored. No one has to obey a law that originates in the Supreme Court.
    No healthcare tax emanated from the house, to the contrary, there are specific denials from the sponsors of the bill that it definitely was not a tax.
    The Supreme Court does not write legislation. John Roberts disgraced himself by trying to act as an elected official, writing laws. He ruled on a bill that does not exist, and it should be ignored in its entirety.
    John Roberts should be impeached for overstepping the bounds of his position, malfeasance, impersonating a legislator, and defrauding the public.
    Ron Reale

    1. Ron….great reply to Doug's article, and very informative…thanks.
      Very quickly, and with the help of Congress and the courts (including the "Supremes"…political pedants that they are !!), Obama is systematically destroying not only the Constitution, but also the Bill of Rights.
      I am of the opinion that continued "Nullification" by the Red States….while very important, is not enough…
      There needs to be another component….serious discussion about the States' rights to secede from the union.
      We don't need 'saber-rattling' regarding this…we need sovereign states to own up to their responsibility to protect themselves and the citizenry of this country from the blatant tyranny this centralized government has wreaked against both individuals and states, a situation which "they", the states created….both by forming the central government for their lazy convenience and by allowing their Frankenstein Monster to suck the lifeblood out of personal rights, free-choice , and states' sovereignty.
      The states have neglected…abdicated…their Constitutional responsibilities to nullify unjust laws….just as surely as Congress has refused to exercise their right to challenge, within 30 days, any Executive Order issued by Obama.
      Secession must be discussed for those States unwilling to further abide the over-reach of Federalism.

      To Doug, author of this fine article…it matters not to me why Roberts committed his traitorous act….that will be the stuff of civil libertarians and conspiracy buffs debates for ages to come….question is : what is America (And are Americans), going to DO about it ?
      You and I will continue to differ on what prompted Roberts to commit such a fraud against the Constitution he was "sworn in" to protect….I believe that an HONEST man would NOT, would NEVER, have deviated from doing HIS part ( his part alone…solely and without trickery, without playing fast and loose with the Constitution, or stupidly and vainly worrying about the integrity and veracity of HIS Court….which he successfully wound up further undermining anyway !!).
      With the stroke of his pen Roberts COULD have ended the entire Obama healthcare fiasco as being Unconstitutional…and he would have forever ended ANY future administration's attempted abuse and convolution of the commerce clause, but, in an act of intense cowardice, he chose to do neither…additionally, he further endangered this country's future on a 2012 election which Romney may not win. We may find ourselves unable to ever repeal this odious law.
      I wonder what Independence Day means to Chief Justice Roberts ??

  3. But still the question remains WHY! Now reports are stating that Roberts initially decided to overturn the law, then changed his mind to write the nonsensical tax decision! What in the world could have prompted this?

    I firmly believe Roberts KNOWS this law is unconstitutional yet ruled as he did in an effort to bring together conservatives and the mass of Americans opposed to this government takeover of their liberty. It was therefore his aim to throw Obama from office and leave it to a Republican congress and president to repeal the law.

  4. For the record, here are two other excerpts from USSC case opinions which also reflect that Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce, emphasis on healthcare. In fact, in first excerpt Justice Barbour referenced excerpt from Gibbons in previous post, expanding on it.

    "Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state (emphasis added) and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.

    And before Constitution-ignoring FDR nuked the Supreme Court with activist Justices, the Court had again clarified in 20th century that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate medical practice.

    “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

    Finally, I find it suspicious that Justice Scalia did not reference the excerpts from either Gibbons or Miln since he had referred to Miln, I believe, in his dissent in Arizona v. United States opinion released earlier that week.

  5. This is why it's so great to be a Supreme Court justice! Lifetime employment and your decisions are your own.

    Oh, legal pundits may pick apart your reasoning and question the pertinence of the precedents you cite, but so what.

    Sucks not to be a Supreme Court justice….

  6. I think it was TO GET PEOPLE OFF THERE ASS AND GET RID OF HUSSEIN ONCE AND FOR ALL. Buy putting a BULL-EYE on his back! Like they say payback is hell.

    Have you join the Tea Party yet???? Why not????We need you, the more the better. The more powerfull we will be.

Comments are closed.