In trying to understand how he could come to the conclusion he did I came across this at a CBS affiliate. He said,
“In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”In other words, we know what it says and we know what those words mean but since it doesn’t fit the result we want, we are going to change the meaning of the words. It is like a child declaring that ice cream is now a vegetable.
Justice Scalia at least owns a dictionary. His response to this nonsense was,
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”Roberts exhibits post modern thinking at its best. This philosophy makes everything relative. It has a concept called “deconstruction” which teaches that words have no meaning apart from their context. While that is true in such simple words as “can” it is not so clear in such things as “wheat”.
We seem to have taken the next step from Nancy saying, “You need to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” Now that makes sense. It doesn’t matter what it says. The elitists on the Supreme Court will tell us what it means, even if it doesn’t.
I guess that also explains why it isn’t important that high school graduates can’t read their diplomas.
homo unius libri