From Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health (the gay marriage case):
This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.
Who is Roberts trying to fool? He should go back and read his own majority opinion in King v. Burwell. The Chief Justice had no trouble rewriting the Affordable Care Act so that, notwithstanding the plain language of the statute, low-income insurance buyers in states that operate their own insurance exchanges will receive federal subsidies (see “He Said That? 6/25/15—THE SUPREME COURT’S OBAMACARE TRAVESTY,” SLL). Roberts is just trying to restore his credibility with conservatives who thought he meant what he said about being “an umpire,” not a legislator in robes. Nice try, John, but Obamacare and its financial ramifications are a hell of a lot more important than whether or not gays can wed. Gay marriage will take the happy out of gay, but that’s their business. Obamacare will wreck our entire medical system, and Roberts’ name is on a blown opportunity and legally proper last chance to stop it by making it adhere to its own terms.
STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC 
The most benign statement I can make is that I totally agree with your assessment of Roberts and SC decisions this week. With all three branches legislating the liberal agenda and the Pravda media providing cover and justification, I am much discouraged. On other fronts discussed on SLL, I also do not find much encouragement. Any realistic plans to turn things around or is the comment by Invisible Mikey the true reality? (SLL 6/25/15 link in above article)
LikeLike
There is no plan to turn things around in the present context, but this house of cards will collapse. I think that will present an opportunity for those who are prepared for the collapse and willing to work to restore freedom and the rule of law afterwards. Invisible Mikey’s assessment is undoubtedly pragmatic, but name one earth-shattering change that was made by a pragmatist.
LikeLike
I get a law blog (=blawg) called Simple Justice. He wrote on “SCOTUScare” and it is appropriate. Not being an attorney, the comment section reminded me of “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”. Substitute “state” for “is” and enjoy the parsing, if possible. I did not.
LikeLike
Pragmatists don’t make earth shattering changes. They get to take the best decisions available to them after the warnings of the cynics went unheeded.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on lisaandrews1968.
LikeLike