According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Relativism is “The belief that different things are true, right, etc., for different people or at different times.” Another tenant of Relativism is the shifting meaning of words, in other words, words no longer hold meaning constant, they can mean one thing one day and another the next in the same context or statement. In such a world, not only is everything relative it is also meaningless, but when this standard is applied to the law, then the law also becomes lawless.
In his six to three majority opinion on King v. Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “When read in context, the phrase ‘an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]’ is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—for purposes of the tax credits.”
In his statement, it is difficult to see how the subject phrase is “ambiguous” unless Roberts had predetermined his opinion and then looked for a way to justify it. One only needs to read how 42 U.S.C. §18031 defines an “Exchange” to see how Roberts and his justices in crime twisted the meaning of the word “Exchange”.
Near the top of 42 U.S.C. §18031, under the title heading “American Health Benefit Exchanges”, it defines an “Exchange” by the legislative body that establishes it. It specifically pronounces, “Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title [1] as an ‘Exchange’).”
In the context of this definition, “Each State” unequivocally refers to one of the fifty “States” that make up the United States and an “Exchange” is in reference to an “entity” set up by one of the States with a capital “S” not a small one.
When this definition is applied to Roberts’ “ambiguous” phrase, its perceived ambiguity evaporates like smoke in front of a mirror. That phrase most certainly did not “refer to all Exchanges – both State and Federal” it only referred to “State” Exchanges with a capital “S” not a small one.
Jonathan Gruber, the MIT Economist who is purported to be the chief architect of Obamacare and has been paid $392,600 by the Obama administration, repeatedly made the same argument King made in King v. Burwell. Among several other similar quotes, Gruber in 2012 said, “What’s important to remember politically about this [Obamacare bill] is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill.”
In light of this evidence one can draw the conclusion that the Supreme Court has bent to political pressure and entered the Age of Relativism. Regrettably, by the Supreme Court’s six to three majority opinion in the King v. Burwell, the Court has not only made themselves lawless, they have also rendered themselves irrelevant.