Featured Image
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before the House Judiciary Committee's Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on Capitol Hill May 20, 2010 in Washington, D.C.Stephen Masker / Flickr

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Although the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare subsidies in a 6-3 decision together, its ruling in King v. Burwell provoked sharp condemnation from the rapier mind of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Supreme Court has violated its authority, ignored its responsibilities, twisted the plain meaning of the English language, and undermined the rule of law, he wrote in a dissent offered on behalf of himself, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia wrote. This ruling, coupled with a prior ruling that said the federal government had the right to force Americans to purchase health insurance – shows that the Court's liberal bloc “is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

The ACA states that federal subsidies are only available to Americans who purchase insurance through an exchange “established by the state.” However, the Obama administration gave millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to people who live in states that refused to participate in ObamaCare.

Four Virginia residents sued, saying this violated the law.

Justice Scalia agreed that the legal question is “so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,'” he added.

Yet the liberal bloc, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said that the wording was inconsequential, because lawmakers meant to offer subsidies to Americans nationwide.

In doing this, Scalia wrote, they endorsed an “impossible possibility.”

The American people – and the Constitution that represents their legal charter of enumerated responsibilities to the government – “made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

“The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men,” he wrote for the ever-shrinking conservative bloc.

His dissent echoed around courtrooms, think tanks, and water coolers around the country.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called the ruling “an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that justices tortured the Affordable Care Act, performing “linguistic gymnastics to salvage its faltering performance.”

The only solution to a court that allows the federal government to rewrite existing law is to repeal the law altogether. “It is now incumbent upon Congress to put a stop to this poorly crafted law by repealing ObamaCare in its entirety,” Perkins said. “Between ObamaCare delays, rising health costs, rationing, and broken promises, the American people are seeing first-hand the indelible flaws with this law.”

“It is not the Court's responsibility to rewrite the law,” agreed Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee. “Women, who make 80 percent of the healthcare decisions, still believe that ObamaCare is a load of broken promises.”

Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, said the convoluted ruling was “not the end of the discussion. The very simple fact of the matter is Obamacare violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution by implementing the single largest tax hike in U.S. history with a Senate-originated bill. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has thus far refused to consider this reality.”