Was there collusion and intimidation between Obama and the Supreme Court regarding ObamaCare?
Hey, I tried to warn all of you that the fix was in from day one of the ObamaCARE hearings. Remember back in March how HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor just happened to be hanging out at the same resturant the first night after the ObamaCARE hearings? With all the restaurants in the DC area, both Sebelius and Sotomayor just happened to be at the exact same resturant, at the exactly same time of night. Then on April 2nd, Obama threw an epic tantrum threatening the Supreme Court Justices. Some wondered then if the vote has already been leaked to Obama. Now, the nation is left scratching there head after so called “conservative” Justice Robert flip-flopped his vote to hold up ObamaCARE and basically re-writing the mandate to call it a tax. Now The Center for Western Journalism is wondering, was there collusion and intimidation between Obama and the Supreme Court regarding ObamaCare?
But as suddenly as Obama began attacking the Supreme Court, he as suddenly dropped the subject and remained quiet. All indications were that he was going to begin a class warfare/racist narrative, calling the conservatives on the Supreme Court a bunch of rich white guys, saving the Uncle Tom designation for Clarence Thomas, which had been rolled out ad nauseam before.
But strangely he remained quiet.
When we learned that Roberts had not only sided with the liberal members on the Court, but also wrote the opinion, for most conservatives it was a punch in the stomach. But when we found out how he sided with the liberals, it was like a slap in the face. The mandate was a tax and could not be construed under the Commerce Clause. One could not be mandated to buy broccoli simply because someone had determined individuals who didn’t eat broccoli were unhealthy, and therefore drove up health costs and therefore affected commerce. But per Roberts one could be taxed arbitrarily if the government deemed it beneficial. Who was Roberts to judge the wisdom of the government? he opined in his opinion: “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness” (44). Well, actually he is there to determine the wisdom, specifically the constitutionality, of our government.