Two different philosophies exist about umpiring in baseball. One man says, “I do my best to determine whether the pitcher has thrown a ball or a strike, and I call it accordingly.” The second confides, “I don’t care what it is; it will be whatever I call it.” This second philosophy has now been adopted by the Supreme Court. It once was the case that the Supreme Court made their decisions based on what the Constitution said; now they no longer care about accuracy; whatever they decide is the law—no matter how absurd the ruling is. It happened twice on June 25 and 26, 2015.
Whether or not anyone thinks Obamacare is a good idea is beside the point. In order to uphold the law passed by Congress, the Court had to change obvious meanings into their opposites. Justice Scalia called attention to this practice when he said:
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ … The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so (emphasis GWS).
The person who designed the law admitted that it was designed to make states comply with the national law, but Chief Justice Roberts, despite that fact, said that the law surely meant to say state exchange OR the federal government. Clear and indisputable language can now mean its exact opposite, according to the Court. Even Aristotle, 2,400 years ago, knew that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
The ruling on homosexual marriage took a term that people have used since the Year One and in Orwellian fashion decided that, according to the 14th Amendment (which does not mention the subject), marriage can now be broader than to involve one man and one woman, as God designed it. The same Chief Justice Roberts who did verbal flip-flops in the first decision decried the abuse of definition in the second case. Go figure. The Supreme Court has adopted the philosophy of the NIV translators. Their dynamic equivalence philosophy allows them to know what framers of the Constitution meant to say—even if they never hinted at it and would be appalled by such unprecedented antics.