1. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) discovered that the Constitution requires same sex marriage. Hey, I don't care at all who gets married. As I have mentioned before I don't think that the government should be in the business of making this decision. I have serious issues with this court case, however. The court did not find an equal right, they redefined a word. Period. For the text of the opinion, go here.
2. The SCOTUS discovered that the plain language of a statute is not the plain language of the statute. In 2010 the Democratic Party, in control of the United States Senate, the United States Congress, and the Presidency, passed the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare without a single Republican vote. That law provided for subsidies for people who could not afford insurance in any state that set up an insurance exchange. The actual text can be found here but basically it says:
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311Emphasis mine. The proponents of Obamacare claimed that it was obvious that the subsidies were supposed to be available to anyone because it didn't occur to anyone that states would refuse to set up exchanges.
That's the wording, however. If they don't like it, I guess they could have proposed a new law which would have fixed the problem. But they didn't.
Instead the Supreme Court found, in the most disingenuous way, that the wording didn't mean what the wording said, just because.
Given these two cases, and adding them to the first Obamacare case, where the SCOTUS found that the fine for failing to have health insurance was really a tax, even though it was specifically stated at the time that it wasn't a tax, I don't see where we have a system of laws anymore. If a fine is a tax because it makes a law Constitutional, if marriage is between any two people because a court says it is in spite of thousands of years of contrary definition, if "an exchange established by a state" doesn't actually mean anything, then what stops the court from making any decision it wants for political reasons?
Oh wait. They already have. Oh well, I'm leaving again for a month. I wonder what will happen while I am gone.
Enjoy the Decline