______ ______ ______ / __ \ / __ \ / __ \ http://libertxn3ogpn6mb.onion | / \ | | (__) | | / \ | ____________ ____________ | | | | \______/ | | | | / ________ \ / ________ \ | | | | ______ | | | \_____ | / __ \ | | | _____) | | | | | / __ \ | | \_____ \ | | (__) | | | | / _____/__ | | | | | / \ | | | __ \ | | | _____/ | | | | / / \ | | | \_____ | | | | | | / \ | | | | / _____/ | | | | \_____/ | | \_____ \ | | | | | | \__/ | | | | \_____ \ | | | | | \________) | | \__/ | | \________/ | | \________) | | \__/ | \____________/\\______/ \____________/ \____________/ \______/ ____________ \\\ __________ ______ / ________ \ ____)| |____ / ______ \/ __ \ M A G A Z I N E | / \ |/ ________ \| / ___) || (__) | ____________ ____________ | \__ __/ || / __ \ || | / ___/\______// ________ \/ ________ \ \__ \ / __/| | / \ | || | | / ______ | (_____ \ || / __ \ | \ | | / | | | | | || | | | / __ \\_____ \ | || | / \ | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | / \ |/ _____/ | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | || / __ | || | | | | | | | | | | | \__/ | || | | | | | | || | (__) | || | | | | | | \__/ | | \________/ || \__/ | | \__/ || \________/ || \__/ \__/ | \______/ \____________/\______/ \______/\____________/\_____/\_____/ Volume 1 - Issue 5 - August 2015 R. I. P. U. S. C O N S T I T U T I O N 1 7 9 1 - 2 0 1 5 S P E C I A L R E P O R T O N J U N E 2 6, 2 0 1 5 : T H E D A Y S C O T U S P U T A N E N D T O L I B E R T Y. '''.''..........',,;ccllodc:clcc:;;;;,.... . ...........'',, ....,'........';:cccoddc:oxxxddooolc::'..... ...',;:lx000xc;,;ldollll:;.. . ...'';:cokOkk0O00Od,..,xkxdol;. ...... ...';:lokX0odl:ok0koc:...:kOd:'. .... ....,;cokO00Oxoc:;,:oxxloo:,';o;. ... ...,:ldxO0kdxxdol,;:,,lkOkkOd:;' .......,coxkOkdc;,:lll,..,.':dk00kc'. .....',cdO0K0x:',,.';loo:,,:''cdklc,... ......;ookkKKOd;''..:ccodooll;llxdl:,'.. .....'ldc:':ldxdc,;l,',;,;lOxdlooolc:,... ...;cl0Kk:;;,;.;lodd:,,;coxOd:cccc:;,,'.. ..xKOOOxkkd:'..,;;kX0xdkl'''dOxl,,,;;;,'.. .... ..d0x::cclol,. .'';ckXNkl:,;xooxkc'',;,'... ',.. .odc;':cll:,,,'..,;ldo:;',;'..;lxl;...''... .,,. 'c:,,,:cldoodoc:;'..........':o:lo'....'... ''.. ..,',,ccdx00o'... .. ..,;...:dd:;lc,'....,... ....;:ll';cx:.. ..c;'...;okkl,,;,'.,'.. .''''. .. .. .:ool:;;,,. :c. ;. ..;clllO00: ALSO: ... ...,dOkko.. ',. .,' . ..,okd;,.. RESTORING LIBERTY ''. ... .. .'col:,. .. .. ..;odl;'.. SCALIA'S SCATHING DISSENTS .''. .,odoc;'. .,.'. .,cxxl;. CAN AN INFALLIBLE POPE BE WRONG? .. .'cdxd:. -page 2- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LiberTORian Volume 1, Issue 5 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A publication of Synonymous 1. Published July, 2015. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LiberTORian is published on an irregular basis. ACQUIRING RELAY 3 Again N(c), 2015. Readers are welcome, LETTERS TO LIBERTORAIN 4 actually encouraged, to copy and distribute this text by any means MYTHS THAT LIBERALS BELIEVE 4 possible, preferable by photocopy- #s 7, 8 and 9! Collect them all! ing. DEEP WEB LINK OF THE DAY 5 Duck Duck Go LIBERTORIAN HAS A DEEP WEB SITE: http://libertxn3ogpn6mb.onion/ MEET THE LIBERTARIANS 6 Number 2 in a series: (Thanks to a user on Onionland) Constitutional Conservatives CORRECTION 7 CORRESPONDENCE: synonymous1@ruggedinbox.com FEATURE 8 Can an infallible Pope Be Wrong? Send submissions to LiberTORian at the above address. BLURBZ 11 Hillary Has the Media On a String DONATE TO LIBERTORIAN: 12yfpaKCHL7XCdWGiM8x9nuaBw1TbW1q2s FEATURE 12 Scalia's Scathing Dissent #1: Obergefell v. Hodges BLURBZ 18 >><< Randomly-read Twitter Posting >> << >> << INDEX OF FTP/DOCUMENTS/JOURNAL 18 >> << July 2nd, 2015 >> Don't << >> Hurt << BLURB!!! 21 >> Others << Support/Write for LiberTORian >> And << >> Don't << CLASSIC TXT FILE OF THE DAY 22 >> Take << 1776paid.txt >> Their << >> Stuff << FEATURE 23 >> << Restoring Liberty >> << >> << FEATURE 26 >><< Scalia's Scathing Dissent #2: King v. Burwell _______ DNS LOOKUP FAILED 36 /------- // ______________________________________________________________________/| ((L)) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -page 3- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% A C Q U I R I N G R E L A Y - By Synonymous 1 - %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Much of this issue covers the SCOTUS U.S. Constitution, and thus, it does decision on homosexual marriage. To NOT have the right to perform, many who read this, there will be license, restrict, or in any other closed-mindedness toward the views way, interfere with marriage. This presented in this issue. That's be- includes the Supreme Court. cause, when the decision was ordered by the Court, all the news coverage Marriage is a rite, not a right. was from the point of view of the Marriages were strictly RELIGIOUS gay activists. Most people don't ceremonies until the government even know what the other side even interfered. Each religion has a believes. That's because the point right to decide who it allows or of view of the other side was barely does not allow to marry. If a shown... or allowed to be shown, by church wants to only marry one man the mainstream media. Instead, any and one woman (Jews, Catholics, opponents of the ruling are mocked, Pentecostals, etc.), or allow gay ridiculed, and depicted as a bunch marriage (reform Episcopal, Uni- of intolerant, backwards modern-day tarian, etc.), or allow marriage equivalents of racists. among three or more people (Muslims, certain Mormon sects, etc.), it's up We were given mindless platitudes of to each individual church to decide "love wins", a hashtag coupled with its own policies, and people may some of the most hateful venom seen choose to be married in the church on Twitter this side of ISIS. Those that best fits their values. The opponents who expressed outrage or government has no right dictating to disapproval were bullied for daring religions, or forcing upon religions not to go along and fully support decrees that the Constitution for- all the celebrating going on. It's bids them from doing. hard to celebrate the death of fundamental rights. The 10TH amendment gives the right of each individual state to decide So presented for not the first time, their policies on non-enumerated except to those who don't venture powers, including marriage. The outside the media bubble (that goes Court overstepped their bounds, for viewers and reporters alike), citing the 14th Amendment, calling here is the Constitutional, or marriage a "privilege". A privi- libertarian, view on marriage: gay, lege is something the government straight, and et cetera. bestows, and is different than a right. Marriage is not a privilege, as it's not in the government's LIBER-TOR-IAN STANCE ON MARRIAGE! jurisdiction. And even decisions by individual states on regulating marriage may not infringe on the The Constitution enumerates the 1st Amendment right to freedom of powers of the federal government religion. By enumerated; that means that the only powers that government has So you see, it's a very tolerant are explicitly mentioned in the position. The real intolerance is document itself, and if a power is from the gay marriage crowd; why are NOT in the document, the government they so against marriage for more DOES NOT have the power to regu- than one man and one woman? late. Marriage is NOT in the ((L)) -page 4- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LETTERS TO LIBERTORIAN MYTHS THAT LIBERALS BELIEVE #7 --- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LiberTORian, "The Founding Fathers were slave owners." The article "The Matrix vs X-Men" didn't really fit your magazine. There were 56 Founding Fathers. For the most part it semed [sic] Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. The to promote Occupy values and anger other 55 did not. fro [sic] all police and govern- ment officials and the rich. BONUS MYTHS!!!!! Libertarians have a problem with Myth #8: many in law inforcement [sic] and government, but are not blanket Thomas Jefferson had a child with against them all for the sake of his slave girl." opposing them. And there are rich people who are corrupt but Maybe or maybe not, but the woman there are many who are not. I who made this claim on Oprah Winfrey can really find the kind of value in the 1990s was a fraud. But the in that article on so many other media which devoured this story had onions, so please don't do that no interest about this later revel- here too. ation. Anonymous Myth #9: Dear Anonymous, "There are Muslim Founding Fathers." While the article published did present an Occupy Wall Street view This isn't believed by many, but point, it didn't offer opinions to President Obama told this lie in a promote those values, however. It speech in 2014. The slightest only offered analysis of the films research on this (reading the 56 in discussion. There was much in signatures on the Declaration of the article I disagreed with, but Independence and looking up their there were some good points too. religion) disproves this easily. The article made comparisons that demonstrated changing attitudes Thanks to Synonymous Xi for the toward filmmakers' presentation of suggestion of these myths. authority in film. LiberTORian would like to see more references to social themes in films, and %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% even fiction with Libertarian ideals. As a libertarian, I can DENYING THAT THERE IS CLIMATE? handle different points of view. ------- You can also be assured that the %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% magazine will differentiate be- tween a viewpoint and an endorse- Leftists change the language when ment. You'll never see within the they can't win an argument. When pages of LiberTORian anyone say, they lost on "global warming", they "Eat The Rich! Stop the Jews!" changed to "climate change", because In the future, instead of sending how can you deny that the climate just a letter to us (which is your changes? Now skeptics are called right), you're welcome to write an "climate deniers"! Name one person article for LiberTORian! ((L)) who denies the EXISTENCE of climate; unless their head's on the moon? -page 5- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >>> 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion <<< DEEP WEB LINK OF THE DAY! or >>> duckduckgo.com <<< %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DUCK DUCK GO Duck Go took four years. Now it conducts 250 million a month. The http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion revelations about NSA spying and https://duckduckgo.com other invasions of privacy by the Obama Administration have drawn recent attention to internet search Let's face it. Yahoo sucks. Bing privacy. And they realized that sucks. Google not only sucks, but Google wasn't on their side. In its search results are horrible and _SEARCH ENGINE LAND_ Duck Duck Go the company is totally evil, crim- critic Danny Sullivan says that the inal, and invades your privacy. Duck site isn't that popular because, Duck Go is a search engine that WILL "No One Cares About 'Private' NOT TRACK your IP address. The Search". You fool. maybe millions company believes in keeping your don't, but a sizable number of visits to their sites and all your concerned people do. You just dis- searches private. Keeping with this missed them. Again: Duck Duck Go tradition, Duck Duck Go also has an doesn't measure its success by how established presence in the deep web monolithic and overreaching it at 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion. becomes. LiberTORian began using Duck Duck Go Someone else said the name, "Duck before discovering the deep web. It Duck Go", is silly. Please explain not only protects your privacy, but, the name, "Google". since Duck Duck Go doesn't record your personal information, all Results from Duck Duck Go searches search term results are equal for come from the clearnet and deep web any given user. It still returns as well. I typed in a search for better results than Google, which LiberTORian and found a deep web recently has skewed its results link from a pastebin where the against more relevant links. first issue was originally posted: This Philadelphia-based company is http://pasterlczk6anaqz.onion.city/ the David to Google's Goliath; it's eelcc92a55.html (DEFUNCT LINK) run by less than two dozen people. What really frightens Google is the I actually took part in a promotion fact that Duck Duck Go doesn't even campaign they were running where you try to become king of the hill. And refer three people to Duck Duck Go that attitude has caused them to and receive a free T-shirt. I was think dynamically and outside of the able to get more than three people box; something Google is incapable to switch, and they were out of of. shirts for now. Oh, well. I have a raincheck. It's in their best Even though Duck Duck Go is known by interest that they get them soon, only 2% of web surfers, its impact since wearing the shirt gives them is huge and growing. Safari and free advertising! Mozilla added it as a standard op- tion to their browsers. And Duck Make sure to add Duck Duck Go to the Duck GO dethroned Google as Gnome's bookmark list on your TOR browser. default engine. It's one of the most useful tools for exploring both the deep web and The first million searches on Duck the surface web. ((L)) -page 6- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MEET THE LIBERTARIANS - By Synonymous 1 and G.P.S. - %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES: of man, but God. As such, they can not be taken away by man, since We The People these rights were not granted by man, only affirmed. Anarchism is the most extreme form of individualism on the planet. But A Constitutional Conservative recog- it results in chaos unless there is nizes that the Constitution is the no authority to enforce libertarian most free system ever devised. It's values. But how much government designed to right wrongs as a nation should there be? Enter the United advances. No one has ever come up States Constitution. with a better way to run a society. A Constitutional Conservative re- Constitutional Conservatives rely on spects the law because it's just, the Constitution as the fairest and fair, free, has led to the most most free government code ever de- prosperous and generous nation in vised. It wasn't easy- a war was the history of the world, and looks fought to attain individual freedom, to a higher power as the source of and an entire system was established freedom, not man or mere law. afterward that failed: The Articles of Confederation. In 1971, the A Constitutional conservative looks Constitution was crafted, based upon to the Constitution as the highest the principles espoused in the Dec- authority in the land. It's purpose laration of Independence. Three is twofold: 1) verify the freedoms branches of government were designed of mankind, and 2) prevent the and given checks on the others so no government from misusing unjust one branch would concentrate too authority to infringe on the rights much power. The Constitution clear- of the people. ly defined the powers of government, and their ONLY powers. Those powers The Constitutional conservative that are not enumerated were for- does look toward the intent of the bidden. Government was given just Founding Fathers when interpreting enough power to protect individual the Constitution. They were a freedoms from oppressors, and, when deeply religious people who held the Constitution was enforced, the strong to the reliance of strong biggest oppressor, the government, family units. Parental rights are was also unable to infringe on its important to Constitutional conserv- people. atives, and with it, the responsi- bility for involved parents in the Despite the lies concocted by uni- upbrining of their children. Adults versity professors in the 1930s, the are expected to instill moral values Founding Fathers were God-fearing in their children. This means that people. They believed that rights they may wish for some government came from God, not government. The involvement in maintaining moral Constitution they drafted did not community standards. This is an grant rights; they merely confirmed area where other libertarians may in a legal system the God-given disagree with Constitutional rights proclaimed in the Declaration conservatives. In this group, there of Independence. The Bill of are people who wish to restrict Rights, the first ten amendments of access to pornography, advocate for the Constitution, also are God-given television and the airwaves to be rights. As such, they are not laws cleaned of obscenity, or the en- -page 7- forcement of other social mores. To !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! comply with the U.S. Constitution, they may seek to enforce such regu- C O R R E C T I O N ! ! ! ! lations at the state level, in line with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The reasoning behind the Consti- tutinal conservative's strong wish In LiberTORian issue 2's article, for moral regulation is that they "BitCoin: Commerce with 0s and 1s", draw a distinction between adults we wrote that a Satoshi is the same and children. Libertarianism is a as a microbitcoin. This is a mis- philosophy to be practiced by adults take. A satoshi, as the article but while their children are still stated, is the smallest division of young, the parents, as their care- a bitcoin. But it is 1/100th of a takers, are responsible for their microbitcoin: upbringing and moral guidance. Parental rights to raise children the way they wish supersedes the o 100 satoshi = 1 microbitcoin child's rights to do as they wish, o 1000 microbitcoin = as they must face the consequences 1 millibitcoin of the parents. It is the parents' o 1000 millibitcoin = responsibility, then, to instill the 1 bitcoin. values of freedom into their child- ren so they, in turn, can make responsible decisions as adults. o 1 bitcoin = 1BTC o 1 millibitcoin = In essence, the parent-child re- .001 BTC lationship is a microcosm of the o 1 microbitcoin = Constitutional conservative's .000001 BTC system of governance: we are still o 1 satoshi = .00000001 BTC free to take actions, but if we do harm to others/ disobey our parents, the law/ parent is there to protect SORRY ABOUT THAT!!! the rights of the one harmed/ guide us to be better adults. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The child is born with the Id, so, People are Sharing LiberTORian as parents teach the children to be %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% responsible, they are given freedoms throughout their childhood, until they prove themselves to be full- This Spanish Facebook page, "La Deep fledged members of society. Web", contains a screen shot of the The Constitutional conservative's LiberTORian web site. demands of a government are mainly to assist in this aspect of the In Spanish, the site wrote: moral development of children and little more. As a person matures, "LiberTORian is a publication for he or she will take on greater re- deep web users... ( in English ) sponsiblities. But a child needs some form of guidance. A young http://libertxn3ogpn6mb.onion child without direction can run into Fortran BA" the middle of a street and be killed without knowing why. Libertarianism (Assumed "Fortran BA" is the one who requires the ability to discern the submitted.) THANKS, LA DEEP WEB! consequences of the decisions one makes, at least from the view of the https://es-la.facebook.com/ constitutional conservative. ((L)) laDeepWeb?_fb_noscript=1 ((L)) -page 8- C A N A N ____ ___ __ __ _ __ __ ___ / _/___ / _/___ _ / // /(_)/ / / /___ / _ \ ___ ___ ___ _/ / / _ \ / _// _ `/ / // // // _ \ / // -_) / ___// _ \ / _ \/ -_) /___//_//_//_/ \_,_/ /_//_//_//_.__//_/ \__/ /_/ \___// .__/\__/ ________________________________________________________ /_/ / - B Y S Y N O N Y M O U S 1 - / B E W R O N G ? /__________________________ It's an often heard phrase: "The What is meant by that is that the Pope in infallible". But how often church doctrine is the authority of is the phrase understood? How many Peter and his successors. This is Catholics think the phrase means the what is meant by infallibility, and Pope is sinless? How many protes- it is all that is meant. It doesn't tants hear it and wonder how could mean that the Pope is sinless. the church be arrogant enough to Peter himself, like all the Popes proclaim something like that? It is that succeeded him, was a sinner. not understood by many people. When He even denied knowing Jesus three a Catholic hears Pope Benedict say, times: in a statement on global warming, "The Earth is crying out in pain," Then a maid, seeing him as he Practicing Catholics who are trying [Peter] sat in the light and to do the right thing wonder if they gazing at him, said, "This man are compromising their faith if they also was with him [Jesus]." But reject such nonsense. To answer the he denied it, saying, "Woman, I question, let's examine what being do not know him." infallible means to the Catholic church. And a little later some one else saw him and said, "You are also It is a tenet of Catholic faith that one of them." But Peter said, the Pope is the figurehead of the "Man, I am not." church. According to Catholic be- lief, Jesus enshrined Peter with the And after an interval of about an keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: hour still another insisted, say- ing, "Certainly this man was also And I tell you, you are Peter, and with him' for he is a Gali- on this rock I will build my lean." church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I But Peter said, "Man, I do not will give you the keys of the know what you are saying." kingdom of heaven, and whatever And immediately, while he was you bind you bind on earth shall still speaking, the cock be bound in heaven, and whatever crowed. you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And the Lord turned and looked Matthew 16:18,19 at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had Jesus assigned Peter as the vicar of said to him, "Before the cock the church He established: the first crows today, you will deny me Pope. Today's Pope is a successor three times." of Peter. The key to infallibility Luke 22:56-61 is in the keys, literally. Whatever is loosed on Earth is loosed in Jesus chose imperfect men to conduct Heaven. God's will. The Pope's infalli- bility is not at all interpreted to -page 9- mean that he is perfect or incapable common." of sin. Protestants sometimes are critical of Catholics, mistakenly This happened three times, and believing that they consider the the thing was taken up at once to Pope to be without sin. It's not heaven. what they believe. Acts 10:9-16 Whenever there is a question about The passage continues to indicate rituals for Christians, the Pope's that Peter still was unclear by the infallibility means that his word on message, but Cornelius, a centurion, the issue is the Church's position. was prompted by an angel to inter- The decision is not the Pope's to pert the dream to Peter to indicate make himself. Instead, according to that followers in the Church were no Catholic belief, he is guided by the longer required to adhere to the Holy Spirit to the decision. The kosher rules. Pope does not come up with the answer himself, but prays for it to This is what the infallibility of be revealed to him through the Holy the Pope is referring to. There was Spirit. When Peter was the Pope, a conflict within the church on an there was a dispute among the con- official position, and the Pope, who verts from Judaism. The Jews were is guided by the Holy Spirit, was adhering to the kosher laws, includ- given the answer. Note that the ing not eating meat and dairy in the Pope himself doesn't make the decis- same meal, and avoiding pork. Those ion, but the answer come to him who converted from pagan and other through God. religions were not. Many of Jews said that the gentiles must adhere A similar situation occurs in the to the laws of the Torah, and the Book of Acts, when the apostles gentiles said that it's not a part were gathered in an early Ecumenical of being a Christian. So Peter Council (though it didn't go by that prayed for guidance by the Holy name at the time). They chose a Spirit, and in a dream, received an successor to Judas, who hung himself answer. on the day of Jesus' crucifixion. The next day, as they were on "For it is written in the Book of their journey and coming near the Psalms, 'Let his habitation become city, Peter went up on the house- desolate, and let there be no one top to pray, about the sixth hour. to live in it', and 'His office And he became hungry and desired let another take.' something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a And they put forward two, Joseph trance and saw the heaven opened, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed like a great sheet, let down by Justus, and Matthais. And they four corners upon the earth. In prayed and said, "Lord, who it were all kinds of animals and knowest the hearts of all men, reptiles and birds of the air. show which one of these two thou has chosen to take the place in And there came a voice to him, this ministry and apostleship from "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." which Judas turned aside, to go to But Peter said, "No, Lord, for I his own place." have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he And the voice came to him again a was enrolled with the eleven second time, "What God has apostles." (Acts 1:20, 23-26) cleansed, you must not call Note again that the apostles didn't -page 10- WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXXNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNXXXKKKKKKKKK000000000KKK00KKXNNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNXXXXXKKKK000OOOOOkkkkkkkkkkOOkkOO000KXNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNXXXKKKKKKKKKK0OOOkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkOO0KXNNWWWNNWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNXKKKKKKKKKKK0OOkkkxxkkkkxdddddoddddddddxO0XXNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNXKK00000KKKKOkkxxdddxxxdollcc:;:::cllllodxkkOKXNNWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNXKK000KK00Okxxxddddddolllc:;,''',;:llooollook00XWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNXK0000KXXK00OOkkxodddollllc:;,,''',;::lolccc:oxx0WWWWNNWWWW WWWWWWWNNNNNNNWWNNXK0OO0KKXXK000Okkxoddddoollc:;,,,,;;:::clllllclddkKXNNXXNNWW WWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXNNNNK000OkkxdkOOO0kxxoc:;;,,;;;;;::clllllooxOKXXXXNNWW WWWNNNNNNNNWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNX0KKOkkkkO00KX0OOxoc:;,,,,,,,;:ccccclooxO0XXNNNWWW WWWNNNNNNNNWWWWWNNNNWWWNNNNNXXKOkxxkO000KXKKKOxo::;;:cc:::cccclooooxOKNNNNNWWW WWWWNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWWNNXXXXX0kxook0OkkOO0KKOkdclooxOkkkxoolldxkkkkOKNNNNWWWW WWWWWWWWNNNNNWWWNNNNWWWNNXKK0OkkdooxkxoooloxxxdocoddkO0KK0OkddxkOOO00KXXNNNWWW WWWWWWWNNNNWWWWNNNNNNNNNNK00Okkxdoooolllc:looool:clllldkkkOOOOkkkkkO00KKXXNWWW WWWWNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXKKOxollccccc::oxxxdc;;:::cclloxO0000OxxkkO0KXXNWWW WWWNNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN0ko::ccccc::oOOkxc,;:::ccccldkKKKKOkkkkO0KNNNNWW WWWNNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNNNXNNNNNKOdllcc:::cox00OOo:::::cccclok000KK000000KNNNNWW WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXNWWNXKKkool:cccoxOXXKKOdl:::;;;;:ldkk0XXNNXKKKXNNNWWW WNNNXXXNNWNNNNNNWWNNXXXXKXNNXK00xllllooodxk000Kkoc;;,,,;;:ldkk0XNNNNXXKXNNNWWW WNNXXXXNNNNNNNNNWWNNXKKK0KKKK0Okdoodxxxxddxxxkkdc:;;;;clloxk00XNNWWNXXXXNNNWWW WNNNXXXNNNNNNNNNWWNNXKKOxkOO0KOkxxxk0OkkxxdoodkdollllloddxO0XXNWWWWNXXXNNNWWWW WNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWNX00xodkk0X0OkkkO0OkkkkdoodkkkdoooooddxOKNNNWWWWWNNNNWWWWWW WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWNX00xodxxOXK0kxxkOkxxxdoooodxkxooooooodx0XXNWWWWWWNNNWWWWWW WWNNNNXXXNNNNNNNNNNNXKKkodddk0KKOdddxdoooolcclloxdddddollodkKKNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WNNNNNXXXNNNNNNNNNNNNXXOxdddxkO0kxxdolccloc;;::cllooooollooxOOKWWWWWWWNWWWWWWW WWNNNNXXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNKOxddxxkOkxxolccccl:,,;;:ccccclllllodxx0XNWWWWWNNWWNNNN WWWNNNXKKKXXXXNNNNNNNNNXKOxxxxk0xool:ccc::;,,,,,;;:::::cclodxxOKXNNNWWWWWWWNNN WNNNNNXKKKXXXNNNNNNNNNNXK0kkxxk0kddolc::::;,,'''''''',;::lodxxOKXNNNNWWWNNNNNN WNNNNNXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNNXX0OOkkO0Okkxdocc::;,,,'......',::cldxxOKXNNNNNWNNNNNNN WWNNNNNXXNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXX0OOkkOK0OOOkxool::;;,,'....',;::lodkkO0XNNWWNNNNNNNNN WWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXKKKKK000O0KK000OOkkdoc:::;;,;::::coodxkkk0KXWWWMWNNWWWWNN WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXKKKKKKKKKKXK00OOOOOkxdooooooodddddxxxkkOO0KKKKK0KXNWWWWWW NNNNXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXKKKKXNXXKKK0OOOOkkkOOOOOOOkkxddddxkxxxxxxxxoclodkkO0KX XXXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNXXXNNXXXKKXXXXKKKKK000000KKKKKK0OOxdxxxkkxooollll:,;;:cccllo XXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNXXXNNNNXKKKXXKKKKKXXXXXXKKKKKKK0OOkkO00Okdoooolcc:,;::::::;, XXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXNNXXKKK00KXXXXXKKKKKXXXXXXXKKKK00000Oxolllolcc::ccc:::;;, XXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXXXKK0O0KXNNXXXXXXXXNNNNNNNNNNX0xxdooooolc::cclllcc;,,, XXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXKKKXXXXXK0KKXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXKOxlllodkko:;,,;::::::;,,, XXNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXXXXXXXXKKKXXNNNNNNNNNNNNNXKK0OOkxolllooooc,,,,,,,''''''', XXNNNNNNNNXXXK00000KKKKXXXXXKKXNNNNNNXXXXKKKKOkxxdddddollc:;;;;;;;;;,'.....'', NNNNXXNNNNXKKOkxxxxxxxxkkkOOkkO00KKKK000kxxddollllllloc::;,,;;:c:::;'......,,, NNNXXXXNNNK00OkxddddolllloddddxkkOOOOkkkdllccccccccccc:::,',;;:c:::,......',,, NXXXXXXNXXK00Okxddddolllllooooooddddooool:::::::ccllllc;;,',:::c:;;'....'',,,, NXXXXXXXK0OOOkkxxxddolllllllcccc:::;;;,,,,,,,,,:codddoc,,,',;;;;;,,'''',;;,,'. NNNXXXKK0Okkkkkkkkxdollllllllcc:;,,,'''',,,,,,,:cokkxdc,,,',,,,,,'''',,;::;'.. __________________________________________________________________ __ _{________________________ _______________________}_ __ \_\ \________________________( SAINT PETER )_______________________/ /_/ {__________________________________________________________________} -page 11- simply take it upon themselves, but In summary, the two things a Catholic prayed for guidance from God to or a critic of Catholicism should provide the answer to them. The take away from this understanding Pope's infallibility has nothing to of the Pope are: do with his character or a percep- tion that he is sinless. It only 1) The Pope's infallibility doesn't means that all the decisions that imply that he's sinless, or in the Pope makes regarding church some other way perfect or better doctrine is always right, and that than others. It only means that is because those decisions are guid- he's Christ's visible representa- ed by the Holy Spirit working tive of His church on Earth. through him. 2) The Pope's infallibility only If you are a Catholic, this may seem applies to Church doctrine, not to be disturbing, considering that any other aspect of the church. Pope Francis has made many comments It doesn't apply to this personal that libertarian Catholics have a opinions, and Catholics are free problem with. His surprise attacks to disagree with the Pope without on capitalism came after condemning feeling ostracized. "social justice" as from the Devil. His most recent statement on global Hopefully, this insight into the warming is better fitting to Green- beliefs of the Catholic church will peace than the Vatican. So, does provide a better understanding of the Pope's infallibility mean that their customs, believers and non- Catholics have to accept his state- believers alike. Remember that part ments or consider themselves to be of being a libertarian is to respect heretics? the right of people to follow their own religious calling, if any. And The answer is NO. Every Pope is a one way to do that is to understand regular human being, with faults, WHY people believe what they do.((L)) sins, and opinions. Pope Francis is no exception. His opinions, while at times wrongheaded, are just that: his opinions. His opinions are as %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% personal as yours and mine, and are not church doctrine. So, you don't HILLARY HAS THE MEDIA ON A STRING have to agree when the Pope says the Earth is "Crying out in pain". To %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% be accurate, anthropomorphizing the planet Earth is more in line with pagan beliefs than the holy Catholic During 4th of July weekend, Hillary Church. Also, the Earth is not in Clinton appeared in a parade or some- pain. Earth is resilient, and we thing. The media sycophants obliged humans are late arrivals to it. It to her latest demand: they must be was fine without us and it will be inside a giant lasso as she walked fine with us and it will be fine backwards at a safe distance. This after us. actually feeds into the stereotype of her as someone too cowardly to face The Pope's science adviser is in all anything outside her controlled truth a pro-global warming extremist bubble, especially tough questions, who does a lot of politicking, and and the stereotype of the mainstream censoring scientists with opposing media, strung by a leash as they views, to influence the Pope's views follow her wherever she takes them! on global warming. It is a far cry Sorry, the last thing we need is a from receiving guidance from the president who is out of touch with Holy Spirit. the real world, and who sets them- selves apart from how others live! -page 12- . ______________________ . OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting ______________________ Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) SCALIA, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ______________________________________ Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574 ______________________________________ JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–556 v. RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.; VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–562 v. BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.; APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–571 v. RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.; AND GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–574 v. STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT [June 26, 2015] JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE [Roberts]’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences— and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences— can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of -page 13- overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine— of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. I Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.^1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.^2 The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”^3 denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,^4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,^5 abridging the freedom of speech,^6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,^7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,^8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”^9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process? Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today): “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”^10 “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”^11 But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision— such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.^12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the -page 14- endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue. But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.^13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”^14 One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”^15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”^16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”— at the time of ratification or even today— the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.^17 This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross- section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers^18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in- between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans^19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. -page 15- II But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.^20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,^21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies,stands against the Constitution. The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.^22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”^23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”^24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”^25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis. * * * -page 16- Hubris is sometimes defined as o’er weening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”^26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them— with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court— we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence. ENDNOTES 1 Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, p. 14. 2 Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 15–17). 3 U. S. Const., Art. I, §10. 4 Art. IV, §1. 5 Amdt. 1. 6 Ibid. 7 Amdt. 2. 8 Amdt. 4. 9 Amdt. 10. 10 United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). 12 See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8). 13 Ante, at 10. 14 Ante, at 11. 15 Ibid. 16 Ante, at 10–11. 17 Ante, at 12–18. 18 The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14–571 and 14– 574, pp. 1–5. 19 See Pew Research Center, America’s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015). 20 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003). 21 Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). 22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. 23 Ante, at 13. 24 Ante, at 19. 25 Ibid. 26 The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). -page 17- ..... .;oOKNNWWWKOOOxccc,...... .oOKWWWWNNNNNWWWWWNNNXXNNNNNKOolc,. .'cx0XWNNNXXKK0000KNNNNXK000KKKXXNWWNNWN0x; ,cdKNNNXKKK0OkkkxddoddxkOOOOkxkkOOOOKXXXXNNNNNKx. .;kNXXXKK0Okkdddoolcc::cclloddddooddxxxxkO00XNNNNNW0; ;KNXXK0Oxdoollcccc:,,,',,;:::ccccc::cccllloxkOKXNNNNNWk. .ckXK0kkxlc::;;:;,,,,.........'''''''',;,,;::cldk0KXXXNWWO. 'KXK0kdlcc:;,,,',''....................''',,;;;::ldkKXXXNWW0' xNKOdlc:::;,'''..........................'',,,,;;:coO000KXWWk cKX0xolc::;,'''...........................''',,;;;;:lk00000XNN; cWX0kolcc:;;,''...........................''''',,;;;:okOO0KXNWWx .XNKOdolcc:;,,'............................'''''',,;;cdO000KNWWWX; lWX0Oxolcc:;,,'.............................'.''',,,;cdOKKKXNWWWWK. ;NWXK0xoccc:;,,''..............................'''''';cdO0KXNNWWWWWl .OWWNX0xoccc:;;,'''................................''',:d0KXXXNWWWWWX. cWMWWX0xocc::;;;,,'''..............'',,,,,;:cc:;'..''',;lOKNXKXNXNWWX' xWMMWXKOdcc::cclodddoc::;,'....',;;;:ldxkO000000kl;,','';d0XNXKXXNNNk' oWWMWXXOdc::oOKXNXXKOxoc::,''''',;:;:loodlc:::cldkxl:;'',ckXWWNWWWX0Od, .0WWWNNOolcdXXOocc::cccccc:,''''',::;;:::c:cccc:::clo:;::cokKNWWNKklld, .0WWWNOolx0Ooc::;,;::::clll;'..':lcclloodkkkkxxoolloc;;,,,:d0XX0x:;;l' ,XWWWKdokxlloooooodoccccllc;;;;:;;;:c:;;:cc:clollcc;..',,,cxOkxo:,,c' ,xXWW0ooooxxdooxddo:;;;:ll;'',::,',,''''..',,,,,;;'...',,;collol:,:, :XNOddddddc:;;,,';;;,:lc,''',c;'''.''''''',''',,'..',;;;:c:::ll;;. .'coolcol:;;;,,,,;;;cl;,''',,,::,''',,,,,,,,,,,'',,;;;;;::::cc:, ;oc:cll;,,,,',,;cdd:,,'''',;:lc:::;;;;,''''''',,,,;;::::cc;';. .llclllc:::::::cool:,.....',,,,,,,,'...... '',,,,,;::::c:'',. :olllc:;,''.',;cc::;'...';:::::;,,;;'.......',,,,,;;:::cc,,' :doolc;,'..';cc:coddc;;;colcc:;,''',:;,'''.'',,,,;;::::cl;'. :doolc;,''',:l::cllllcclc:,,,'''''',;cc:,,',,,,,,;;;:::c: :doool:;,,,:c::ccc::;,',,''''''',,,,',;::,,',,,,,,,;;:cl; :dooolc:;;:c::cccc::;,,,',''''',,;;::;,,,'''''''',,;:cll; 'dolllc:;;;;;:loollcc;,,,,;;;;::cc::;,,,'....'''',;;:clo' colccc:;'',;coooolc:;,,,,''',,,,''''..'......'',,;:cloc. ,dlc:c:;'..',;:ccc:;''''''''',,'''''''......''',;;clol. .ool:::;,'.';:cc:::;;,,;,,'''''''''''''..''''',,;:lodc.. 'odol:::;,',;;:::;;,,,,,''''''.....'''''''',,,,;:looo;;0O; ,lxOclddolc:;;,;::;;;;;;;,''.'..'''.....''',,,,,,,;:loooc.,0MW0c. .,lkXWMWWWKdodlcc::;::c::;:::;,,,,,'''''''''',;:::;,,;;:llllc'.lKMMWWW0c' ..:OWMMMMMMMWWW0doolc:::clllc:ccc:;;;;;,,,,,;;;;;:cccc:::ccllll;.;0WWWMWWWWWWO XWMMMMMMMMMMMMMWXkddocccclooolcllollccc::ccllcccllc:::cccloolc;;dXWWWWMWWWMWWW MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMWKOxolccccllloddxxxxxkkkkxxdoolc::::::cooolccxNWWWWWWMWWWWMMW WWWWWWMMMMMMMWWWWMMWXkolcc:::::ccloooolc::;;,,,,;::cclodddO0KWWWWWMMWWWWWWMMMW NNWWWWMMMMMMMWWWWMMMWNKOdlc::;;;;;;;;;;,,,,,,,;;:cloodxOKNWWWWWWWWMMWMWWWWMMMW NNNNNWWWMMMMMWWWWMMMMMWWNX0xolc::::::;;;;;,,;;:ccldk0XWWWWWWWWWWWMMWWWWWWWWWWW NNNNNNNNWWMMMMMWWMMMMMWWWWWWNX0Okdolc::;;;;;:ccld0XWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMWWWWWWWWWMMW NNNNNNNNNNWWWMMWWWWWWMMMWWNNWWMWWWNNK0Oxdoddxxk0XNNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMMW NNNNNNNNNNNNWWWMMWWWWWWMMWWNNNWWWWWWWWWWNKKKXNWWWWWWWMMWWWMMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNWWNWWWWWWNKKXNNWWWWWWMMWWMMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNXXNWNNXNNNWWWWWWWMMWWWWWWWNNWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXXNNNNWWWWNNNNNNNXXNWNNWWWNWWNNNNWMWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN __________________________________________________________________ __ _|____________ ____________|_ __ \\_\ \_____________\ SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA /_____________/ /_// |__________________________________________________________________| -page 18- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% RANDOMLY READ TWITTER POSTING: INDEX OF FTP/DOCUMENTS/JOURNAL %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% _____ _____ The Supreme Court can't force non _____\ Log of July 2nd, 2015. /_____ constitutional rights by infringing on fundamental constitutional rights This is the anniversary of Delaware, the First State, ratifying the U.S. \ Declaration. I'm now comfortable __\\__ with visiting onion sites, and am / __ \ still making logs for myself, taking | / \ | notes on sites I've visited that I'd | \__/ | like to remember. \______/ ************************************ 2015-07-02 I visited several noteworthy onions that are useful or contain helpful information. First, I found what is called the SHADOW WEB GATEWAY. They want you to pay .3 BTC (about $70) to get their browser bundle (or some link) and access instruc tions. The SHADOW WEB sites end in .shweb, and promoted itself as "host[ing] the content too dark for the deep web". This sounds like a new sub-level of the deep web, sort of like that phony diagram of the deep web with all these "levels", and mariana's web as one of the levels. Maybe it wasn't as phony as I once believed. The web site ends in "here", and links to a video I haven't seen. But I'm wondering: if this is "too dark", it has got to be the most depraved stuff imaginable, and I couldn't imagine some of the depravity that it on the deep web. What is it: ISIS? Planned Parenthood? Sadist videos? And if it is the worst of the worst, who would want to pay for access to it? Or maybe it's too dark because of the opposite reason: it's information that opposes oppression, and is dangerous to oppressors. Somehow I think it's the former. Shadow Web Gateway vqu4mm5lcjmlqohh.onion I saw a video that supposedly describes it. It was one of those sick minded urban legend type stories. There's five minutes of my life I won't get back. It seems like the site is just a fix for sick people by sick people making money off them. Well, I can get that for free. Next, and by "next", I mean the next site of anything useful or interesting, I came across somethng called "Thoughtcrime with Sarah." Contains a word from Orwell's "1984" and so I was intrigued enough to click. The site contained a single entry in .txt format, much like a vintage eZine: JOURNAL ENTRY 8 May 2015 -page 19- "The internet vigilantes are strong today. Ill-considered Twitter marketing strategy from Spotify. For Mothers Day they asked users to say how they would explain Spotify to their mother. Implied that mothers would not understand much in response. Not inclined to feel sorry for Spotify. A big business should know how not to be a f***wit online. I worry that an individual will suffer the same fate. Maybe not deserved. The vigilantes... these do-gooder keyboard warriors. They are solving the world's problems one outraged tweet at a time. I suppose I should appreciate their work. It's hard." Needless to say, an individual _ALREADY SUFFERED_ the same fate. Look up the creator of JavaScript. Thoughtcrime With Sarah w4ztrr7ht36lzucy.onion With the Silk Road and Silk Road 2 taken down, there are successors, "The Green Road" and "Silk Road 3". Meanwhile it seems like at every turn there is someone who wants to be the next Silk Road, including many sites from Netherlands and even more from Russia. Drugs are plentiful and easily available on the deep web; that is, if they're reliable sources. I will never care enough to find out as I hate this stuff. Eventually I came across "ProPublica", which calls itself "investigative journalism". A cursory evaluation indicates that it's not so balanced; on the whole site, not one report was on any of the president's violations. The fact that it actually won a Pulitzer Prize also makes me wonder. I sent a link to LiberTORian to see if anyone there had any interest. Let's see if I hear anything from them. ProPublica propub3r6espa33w.onion SALTY PLANET is next; they are self-proclaimed "NSA Watchmen". I've read documents in their log and they seem much more objective than ProPublica, just calling things as they see them. A must-read for every libertarian. They do the research and don't play politics, just advocate freedom from electronic invasions of Constitutional rights. Salty Planet 3redy3uikv2cmd75.onion For fans of pop culture, this is a really cool site, SkeleTOR.bit. I think I found that BIT goes beyond BitCoin. Now there's BitMessage (or its unfortunate acronym, BM). Here's the site: "SKELETOR?.?bit is the future home of the Masters of the Universe CGI motion picture project, an endeavor by enthusiasts to animate the first two volumes of the 1980s mini-comics. For news, subscribe to our Bitmessage address: -page 20- BM- 2cVYjbUkPZ17gyLJgAfE7D7mR5u1v7UzoQ " SkeleTOR.bit okzatvfk2jzgvmf4.onion The Tin Hat is a guide to protecting your privacy, and keeping up to date with privacy techniques. The Tin Hat qza32xuddl3guikc.onion WE FIGHT CENSORSHIP is a place that posts censored news and reports on government censorship of news. The focus in the most recent articles is Venezuela (the same country whose authoritarian grasp of the internet is something that, when America did it, E.F.F. SUPPORTED!!!) and Islamic nations. They accept censored articles and articles that caused people to be jailed for speaking them. They seem to have no political agenda, just stand for freedom of speech. We Fight Censorship 3kyl4i7bfdgwelmf.onion NOT EVIL is a search engine that searches the deep web. It's hilarious because its logo is a parody of GOOGLE's logo, and it mocks their hypocritical motto: "Don't Be Evil." They're the most evil company on Earth next to Planned Parenthood! Their results aren't half bad. Not Evil hss3uro2hsxfogfq.onion Onion soup is more of an anti-government/all cops and law enforcement are evil site in general than a "keep your hands off my liberties" site. It covers a broad range of topics. It strikes correct often, but it also fails in many respects. For instance, they beat the "Iran had no WMDs in 2003" drum as though it was true Idisproven in 2014). If you're anti-war, fine, but don't use falsehoods or you're no better than a corrupt government. The truth has no agenda. I still like much of their message, as they are aware of the liberties being taken away from Americans. I directed them to LiberTORian in a message. Onion Soup [REMOVED because I no longer have interest in the site; see below] UPDATE: Onion Soup is truly a full-fledged anti-America anti-law enforcement site and NOT a human rights/individual liberty site. Free speech gives this site a right to speak, but this site has a loose grip on reality, even saying ISIS is more humane than U.S. police in post 14: "(14) Assume that the ISIS beheading videos are authentic. If you compare the Kelly Thomas (and other cops-slaughtering-civilians) videos with the ISIS videos, the technique of ISIS executioners is no more in-humane than that of US cop executioners. The US government neither invaded (nor threatened to invade) Fullerton, CA after the video - below - was circulated. One of the stated goals for re-invading Iraq and invading Syria (however cynical) is to "protect" foreigners from harm at the hands of foreign thugs. This queer -page 21- duality of "protecting" foreigners from foreign thugs but abandoning Americans to domestic thugs demonstrates the warped priorities of the US government." ASSUME THAT THE ISIS BEHEADING VIDEOS ARE AUTHENTIC? _ASSUME?!!_ They don't exactly have ILM doing "special effects". I saw enough of the beheadings to know they were real, before I got so sick and had to turn away. Why don't you visit the very real life, easy to locate families of the victims and tell them you don't even believe that those deaths were real? This make me sick. And secondly, yeah, I know the cop video in question. That was one evil cop, but that was ONE. And despicable as it was, it PALED in comparison to the horrific method of deaths suffered under ISIS. Did you even WATCH an ISIS video? In particular the mass beheading on the beach video? Stop apologizing for them. You don't hurt, let alone KILL people in the name of religious statism! I care about freedom for all and equal justice against those who are corrupt in government, but I do not hate for America itself or government itself or the good people in law enforcement and politics. America is the greatest, most free system the world has ever seen, when it's allowed to work. The problem does not lie with America. It is people who disobey and disregard the law and turn the system of justice into a sword to attack freedom who are the problem. Hating all cops and sympathizing with evil (ISIS) is not the answer. The answer is making the corrupt abusers of power, who think they are above the Constitution, face justice. Only when enough people care about their own freedom, and that of their fellow man, will that happen. soupksx6vqh3ydda.onion * * * WikiLeaks is pathetic. I wonder what their true motives are, but it's surely not in the name of freedom. I conducted a search on their web site, after clearnet searches failed, to see where I can find the most recent "leaked" Hillary Clinton emails. The searches yielded nothing from those, or the past, or anything important. But they sure did turn up a lot of pro-Hillary pages on their site, including tons of pages of fundraising. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are stupid. Edward Snowden they are not. Evil for evil's sake. Their statement must be, "if we can steal it, we'll post it, just because we can. Let the chips fall where they may." The only thing they were good for were the ClimateGate emails, and I found them somewhere else! WikiLeaks Not even noting the URL as I'm sick of them. Why would I need it if I don't even want to visit? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Zinov's site contains texts of in- ALL POINTS BULLETIN terest to libertarians. He asks for &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& people to write to him, but there is no contact information anywhere on LiberTORian is seking a deep web the site. If Zinov, or anyone who user named Zinov. He runs an onion knows how to reach him, has an email site called "Zinov's Gopher Menu". address, please send this informa- The site as located at this address: tion to LiberTORian at: http://jewjewkeei4o4bvn.onion synonymous1@ruggedinbox.com -page 22- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CLASSIC .TXT FILE OF THE DAY >> 1776paid.txt << %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% It's the 4th of July as I'm typing this, so I thought you'd like a reminder, or to be informed for the first time, what happened to the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. I think this file dates from the late 1980s. But it still circulates today on clearnet. Here's the original text, exactly as it originally appeared, formatting and all. ************************************ THE PRICE THEY PAID Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the revolutionary war. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. -page 23- John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Targetshooter's notes: They gave you and I a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot of what happened in the revolutionary war. We didn't just fight the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Perhaps you can now see why our founding fathers had a hatred for standing armies, and allowed through the second amendment for everyone to be armed. Frankly, I can't read this without crying. Some of us take these liberties so much for granted. We shouldn't. Peace my friends, Garry Hildreth (Targetshooter) Erie, Pa %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% R E S T O R I N G L I B E R T Y %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Our Constitution needs our help. But our responsibility is to defend We've all seen or read in the media it. It's not much to ask a liber- stories of people who made a diff- tarian to be active. You are free erence, but does it inspire you? not to oblige, but remember that Probably not. But you really don't not to act is to act. Individual realize how many people you affect liberty is worth defending. in your life, and it is for the better or worse depending on what Here are some suggestions to help you choose to do. I'm not saying restore liberty. to go out and change the world overnight. Just do something and 1) Acquire a copy of the Declaration you'll see a difference on a human of Independence and United States level, bringing the best out of Constitution. individuals. We were given the liberty by God (or for those who These documents aren't that long. don't believe in God, natural law.) read it. Then go the extra mile to -page 24- learn the intent of the words in the self, do the following: important documents. o Offer pocket Constitutions 2) Join a local Tea Party. o Hold meetings in a public place, Tea parties tend to lean libertarian where attention to it can be and are heavily reverent toward the drawn. If you hold meetings at a Constitution, and rule of law, equal library, for instance, it may help application of justice, and limited you promote it. government. Tea parties are often sources for pocket Constitutions, o Be courteous. People of differing available for a dollar donation. opinions will attend. Libertarian minded people ought to respect 3) Join a 9/12 group. each other's opinions. Sometimes a tea party is not right o Educate yourself. Do learn as for you. I stopped attending my much as you can on your own. local tea party meetings for a few reasons: 1) they featured a guest o Be a leader. People will look to who advocated active euthanasia. the founder of the group for Active euthanasia means that the guidance. patient or their family have no say when it comes to allowing a person o Be compassionate. Do good works to live, and the government health for people in need and the less system says that the patient must fortunate in your area, not in be direcly killed even if not term- order to improve a false image of inal. This is far beyond passive such groups, but because it will euthanasia, where a person is re- bless your group. moved from life support and allowed to die naturally. 2) The guest was o Begin the meetings with a prayer. hostile to Catholics for opposing If atheists object, advise them active euthanasia, and even helped that the prayer is an exercise of to foster anti-Catholicism among out First Amendment rights, and we a few of its members. 3) The do not wish to compel you to pray. system itself was too organized; The prayers are voluntary. Be- people had little room for input, lievers are to respect atheists' and everyone followed a strict rights to their deeply-held con- structure. victions, and atheists are to respect people of faith's right to A 9/12 group may be more for you. pray. For those of you who are Christian, a good analogy for a 9/12 group is o Don't ostracize people for speak- a Bible study group for the U.S. ing an unpopular opinion. That Constitution. 9/12 groups are more speaks of statism. Besides, maybe social than tea party groups in it's you who are wrong! general, offer an intimate setting, and provide discussions of the o IMPORTANT! Be wary and always on understanding of founding documents a lookout for infiltrators. Do it and their writers' intent. with vigilance. Progressives HATE people with opinions different 4. Form your own tea party or 9/12 from their own and will go to group. great lengths to destroy you. Cass Sustein instructs statists to Is there not one of these where you do this everywhere at a local live? Your work could fill in a level. There is usually one in much-needed void. If you wish to every group who is also astute at form one of these groups for your- weeding out such people. Let -page 25- each member of a group use his/her 9. Get involved in your local home talents. schooling group. 5. Join your local libertarian party While the public school system is busy making children uneducated and There may be a libertarian party in ignorant and unable to think for your area. Join them and do what themselves (this is NOT hyperbole), you can to raise awareness of issues you can use your talent to teaching of individual liberty. children libertarian principles. One of the goals of school is not 6. Run for local office as a liber- only educating, but to advocate free tarian. thought: the cornerstone of liber- tarianism. If only children today Many offices in your local area are learned basic civics, as adults they probably unopposed. Why not run for would not stand for gross violations office as a libertarian? You can of their basic rights that used to fill a position and actually influ- only take place in third world ence the outcome of events. Keep in dictatorships. They deserve this. mind that campaigning and your work give the children the education they requires an investment of much time. need and want. With so much on edu- Run as a democrat or republican if cation being a "right", they are you wish, but be libertarian, and certainly being unserved by the very proclaim yourself as such. government who keeps chanting this absurd mantra! 7. Form a libertarian party in your area. * * * Maybe you need to fill a void where These are just a few ways a person both parties in your area don't re- can make a difference. Why not spect freedom. A new libertarian consider one or two, pray on the party will energize people looking decision if you are faithful, or for a new solution. This will also make a reasoned contemplation if you take a lot of your time, but you can aren't, and do the part you think seek out and support other candi- is the one you were meant to fill. dates if you are not interested in pursuing office yourself. Conduct Don't go in with the mission to your party as you would a tea party change the world. Those people will or 9/12 group. rarely succeed, and when they do, they tend to be statists who impose 8. Be social on the internet. their will on others and strip the rights of mankind. Just go in with You don't know how many people you the wish to be the one person who can reach by connecting to others. wants to be active for good. And, Keep in contact with others on your if the one person goes in with sin- favorite, or least despised, social cerity and humility to help defend media. Twitter hashtags to read are the rights of everyone, that one can #tcot (top conservatives on Twitter) touch ten people, who in turn will and #tlot (top libertarians on touch a hundred, who will touch a Twitter). Follow people who use thousand, and so on, until the world these hashtags and read their posted DOES become a better place. stories. Retweet and "favorite" them. Spread the message. Also do So what are you waiting for? ((L)) not forget the power of REAL LIFE socializing, which is the reason the real-life 9/12 and tea party groups are so crucial! > Don't hurt others < > and don't take their stuff. < -page 26- . SCALIA, J., dissenting . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 14–114 DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT [June 25, 2015] JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 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. I The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes major reforms to the American health-insurance market. It provides, among other things, that every State “shall . . .establish an American Health Benefit Exchange”—a marketplace where people can shop for health-insurance plans. 42 U. S. C. §18031(b)(1). And it provides that if a State does not comply with this instruction, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must “establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1). A separate part of the Act—housed in §36B of the Internal Revenue Code—grants “premium tax credits” to subsidize certain purchases of health insurance made on Exchanges. The tax credit consists of “premium assistance amounts” for “coverage months.” 26 U. S. C. §36B(b)(1). An individual has a coverage month only when he is covered by an insurance plan “that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [§18031].” §36B(c)(2)(A). And the law ties the size of the premium assistance amount to the premiums for health plans which cover the individual “and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [§18031].” §36B(b)(2)(A). The premium assistance amount further depends on the cost of certain other insurance plans “offered through the same Exchange.” §36B(b)(3)(B)(i). This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B. 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" -Page 27- the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” *Lynch v. Alworth Stephens Co.*, 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpre-tation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. II The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. *Ante*, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford- able Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to **all** Exchanges—both State and Federal.” *Ante*, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) The Court claims that “the context and structure of the Act compel [it] to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” *Ante*, at 21. I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them. Any effort to understand rather than to rewrite a law must accept and apply the presumption that lawmakers use words in “their natural and ordinary signification.” *Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.*, 96 U. S. 1, 12 (1878). Ordinary connotation does not always prevail, but the more unnatural the proposed interpretation of a law, the more compelling the contex- tual evidence must be to show that it is correct. Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of. Who would ever have dreamt [sic] that “Exchange established by the State” means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government”? Little short of an express statutory definition could justify adopting this singular reading. Yet the only pertinent definition here provides that “State”means “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” 42 U. S. C. §18024(d). Because the Secretary is neither one of the 50 States nor the District of Columbia, that definition positively contradicts the eccentric theory that an Exchange established by the Secretary has been established by the State. Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with,other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government. The States’ authority to set up Exchanges comes from one provision, §18031(b); the Secretary’s authority comes from an entirely different pro-vision, §18041(c). Funding for States to establish Exchanges comes from one part of the law, §18031(a); funding for the Secretary to establish Exchanges comes from an entirely different part of the law, §18121. States generally run state-created Exchanges; the Secretary generally runs federally created Exchanges. §18041(b)–(c). And the Secretary’s authority to set up an Exchange in a State depends upon the State’s“*[f]ailure* to establish [an] Exchange.” -Page 28- §18041(c) (emphasis added). Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State. Reading the rest of the Act also confirms that, as relevant here, there are *only* two ways to set up an Exchange in a State: establishment by a State and establishment by the Secretary. §§18031(b), 18041(c). So saying that an Exchange established by the Federal Government is “established by the State” goes beyond giving words bizarre meanings; it leaves the limiting phrase “by the State” with no operative effect at all. That is a stark violation of the elementary principle that requires an interpreter “to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.” *Montclair v. Ramsdell*, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883). In weighing this argument, it is well to remember the difference between giving a term a meaning that duplicates another part of the law, and giving a term no meaning at all. Lawmakers sometimes repeat themselves—whether out of a desire to add emphasis, a sense of belt-and suspenders caution, or a lawyerly penchant for doublets (aid and abet, cease and desist, null and void). Lawmakers do not, however, tend to use terms that “have no operation at all.” *Marbury v. Madison*, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803). So while the rule against treating a term as a redundancy is far from categorical, the rule against treating it as a nullity is as close to absolute as interpretive principles get. The Court’s reading does not merely give “by the State” a duplicative effect; it causes the phrase to have no effect whatever. Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will come across a number of provisions beyond §36B that refer to the establishment of Exchanges by States. Adopting the Court’s interpretation means nullifying the term “by the State” not just once, but again and again throughout the Act. Consider for the moment only those parts of the Act that mention an “Exchange established by the State” in connection with tax credits: o The formula for calculating the amount of the tax credit, as already explained, twice mentions “an Exchange established by the State.” 26 U. S. C. §36B(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)(i). o The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility for “[tax credits] under section 36B” and for “any other assistance or subsidies available for coverage obtained through” an “Exchange established by the State.” 42 U. S. C. §1396w–3(b)(1)(B)–(C). o The Act requires “an Exchange established by the State” to use a “secure electronic interface” to determine eligibility for (among other things) tax credits. §1396w–3(b)(1)(D). o The Act authorizes “an Exchange established by the State” to make arrangements under which other state agencies “determine whether a State resident is eligible for [tax credits] under section 36B.” §1396w–3(b)(2). o The Act directs States to operate Web sites that allow anyone “who is eligible to receive [tax credits] under section 36B” to compare insurance plans offered through “an Exchange established by the State.” §1396w–3(b) (4). o One of the Act’s provisions addresses the enrollment of certain children in health plans “offered through an Exchange established by the State” and then discusses the eligibility of these children for tax credits. §1397ee(d)(3 (B). It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State” once. But seven times? Congress did not, by the way, repeat “Exchange established by the State under [§18031]” by rote throughout the Act. Quite the contrary, clause after clause -Page 29- of the law uses a more general term such as “Exchange” or “Exchange established under [§18031].” See, *e.g.*, 42 U. S. C. §§18031(k), 18033; 26 U. S. C. §6055. It is common sense that any speaker who says “Exchange” some of the time, but “Exchange established by the State” the rest of the time, probably means something by the contrast. Equating establishment “by the State” with establishment by the Federal Government makes nonsense of other parts of the Act. The Act requires States to ensure (on pain of losing Medicaid funding) that any “Exchange established by the State” uses a “secure electronic interface” to determine an individual’s eligibility for various benefits (including tax credits). 42 U. S. C. §1396w– 3 (b)(1)(D). How could a State control the type of electronic interface used by a federal Exchange? The Act allows a State to control contracting decisions made by “an Exchange established by the State.” §18031(f)(3). Why would a State get to control the contracting decisions of a federal Exchange? The Act also provides “Assistance to States to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges” and directs the Secretary to renew this funding “if the State . . . is making progress . . . toward . . . establishing an Exchange.” §18031(a). Does a State that refuses to set up an Exchange still receive this funding, on the premise that Exchanges established by the Federal Government are really established by States? It is presumably in order to avoid these questions that the Court concludes that federal Exchanges count as state Exchanges only “for purposes of the tax credits.” *Ante*, at 13. (Contrivance, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) It is probably piling on to add that the Congress that wrote the Affordable Care Act knew how to equate two different types of Exchanges when it wanted to do so. The Act includes a clause providing that “[a] *territory* that . . . establishes . . . an Exchange . . . shall be treated as a State” for certain purposes. §18043 (a) (emphasis added).Tellingly, it does not include a comparable clause providing that the *Secretary* shall be treated as a State for purposes of §36B when *she* establishes an Exchange. Faced with overwhelming confirmation that “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble argument to support its contrary interpretation. None of its tries comes close to establishing the implausible conclusion that Congress used “by the State” to mean “by the State or not by the State.” The Court emphasizes that if a State does not set up an Exchange, the Secretary must establish “such Exchange.” §18041(c). It claims that the word “such” implies that federal and state Exchanges are “the same.” *Ante*, at 13. To see the error in this reasoning, one need only consider a parallel provision from our Constitution: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter *such Regulations*.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1 (emphasis added). Just as the Affordable Care Act directs States to establish Exchanges while allowing the Secretary to establish “such Exchange” as a fallback, the Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe election regulations while allowing Congress to make “such Regulations” as a fallback. Would anybody refer to an election regulation made by Congress as a “regulation prescribed by the state legislature”? Would anybody say that a federal election law and a state election law are in all respects equivalent? Of course not. The word “such” does not help the Court one whit. The Court’s argument also overlooks the rudimentary principle that a specific provision governs a general one. Even if it were true that the term “such Exchange” in §18041(c) implies that federal and state Exchanges are the -Page 30- same in general, the term“established by the State” in §36B makes plain that they differ when it comes to tax credits in particular. The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. *Ante*, at 13–14. It is curious that the Court is willing to subordinate the express words of the section that grants tax credits to the mere implications of other provisions with only tangential connections to tax credits. One would think that interpretation would work the other way around. In any event, each of the provisions mentioned by the Court is perfectly consistent with limiting tax credits to state Exchanges. One of them says that the minimum functions of an Exchange include (alongside several tasks that have nothing to do with tax credits) setting up an electronic calculator that shows “the actual cost of coverage after the application of any premium tax credit.” 42 U. S. C. §18031(d (4)(G). What stops a federal Exchange’s electronic calculator from telling a customer that his tax credit is zero? Another provision requires an Exchange’s outreach program to educate the public about health plans, to facilitate enrollment, and to “distribute fair and impartial information” about enrollment and “the availability of premium tax credits.” §18031(i)(3)(B).What stops a federal Exchange’s outreach program from fairly and impartially telling customers that no tax credits are available? A third provision requires an Exchange to report information about each insurance plan sold—including level of coverage, premium, name of the insured,and “amount of any advance payment” of the tax credit.26 U. S. C. §36B(f)(3). What stops a federal Exchange’s report from confirming that no tax credits have been paid out? The Court persists that these provisions “would make little sense” if no tax credits were available on federal Exchanges. *Ante*, at 14. Even if that observation were true, it would show only oddity, not ambiguity. Laws often include unusual or mismatched provisions. The Affordable Care Act spans 900 pages; it would be amazing if its provisions all lined up perfectly with each other. This Court “does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly.” *Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community*, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 10). At any rate, the provisions cited by the Court are not particularly unusual. Each requires an Exchange to perform a standardized series of tasks, some aspects of which relate in some way to tax credits. It is entirely natural for slight mismatches to occur when, as here, lawmakers draft “a single statutory provision” to cover “different kinds” of situations. *Robers v. United States*, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 4). Lawmakers need not, and often do not, “write extra language specifically exempting, phrase by phrase, applications in respect to which a portion of a phrase is not needed.” *Ibid*. Roaming even farther afield from §36B, the Court turns to the Act’s provisions about “qualified individuals.” Ante, at 10–11. Qualified individuals receive favored treatment on Exchanges, although customers who are not qualified individuals may also shop there. See *Halbig v. Burwell*, 758 F. 3d 390, 404–405 (CADC 2014). The Court claims that the Act must equate federal and state establishment of Exchanges when it defines a qualified individual as someone who (among other things) lives in the “State that established the Exchange,” 42 U. S. C. §18032(f)(1)(A).Otherwise, the Court says, there would be no qualified individuals on federal Exchanges, contradicting (for example) the provision requiring every Exchange to take the “‘interests of qualified individuals’” into account when selecting health plans. *Ante*, at 11 (quoting§18031(e)(1)(b)). Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the “interests of graduate -Page 31- students” into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has“graduate students,” so that “graduate students” must really mean “graduate or undergraduate students”? Surely not. Just as one naturally reads instructions about graduate students to be inapplicable to the extent a particular professor has no such students, so too would one naturally read instructions about qualified individuals to be inapplicable to the extent a particular Exchange has no such individuals. There is no need to rewrite the term “State that established the Exchange” in the definition of “qualified individual,” much less a need to rewrite the separate term “Exchange established by the State” in a separate part of the Act. Least convincing of all, however, is the Court’s attempt to uncover support for its interpretation in “the structure of Section 36B itself.” Ante, at 19. The Court finds it strange that Congress limited the tax credit to state Exchanges in the formula for calculating the *amount* of the credit, rather than in the provision defining the range of taxpayers *eligible* for the credit. Had the Court bothered to look at the rest of the Tax Code, it would have seen that the structure it finds strange is in fact quite common. Consider, for example, the many provisions that initially make taxpayers of all incomes eligible for a tax credit, only to provide later that the amount of the credit is zero if the taxpayer’s income exceeds a specified threshold. See, *e.g.*, 26 U. S. C. §24 (child tax credit); §32 (earned-income tax credit); §36 (first-time-home buyer tax credit). Or consider, for an even closer parallel, a neighboring provision that initially makes taxpayers of all States eligible for a credit, only to provide later that the amount of the credit may be zero if the taxpayer’s State does not satisfy certain requirements. See §35 (health-insurance-costs tax credit).One begins to get the sense that the Court’s insistence on reading things in context applies to “established by the State,” but to nothing else. For what it is worth, lawmakers usually draft tax-credit provisions the way they d —i.e., the way they drafted §36B—because the mechanics of the credit require it. Many Americans move to new States in the middle of the year. Mentioning state Exchanges in the definition of “coverage month”—rather than (as the Court proposes) in the provisions concerning taxpayers’ eligibility for the credit—accounts for taxpayers who live in a State with a state Exchange for a part of the year, but a State with a federal Exchange for the rest of the year. In addition, §36B awards a credit with respect to insurance plans “which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent . . . of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State.” §36B(b) (2)(A) (emphasis added). If Congress had mentioned state Exchanges in the provisions discussing taxpayers’ eligibility for the credit, a taxpayer who buys insurance from a federal Exchange would get no money,even if he has a spouse or dependent who buys insurance from a state Exchang —say a child attending college in a different State. It thus makes perfect sense for Exchange established by the State” to appear where it does, rather than where the Court suggests. Even if that were not so, of course, its location would not make it any less clear. The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means. III For its next defense of the indefensible, the Court turns to the Affordable -Page 32- Care Act’s design and purposes. As relevant here, the Act makes three major reforms. The guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements prohibit insurers from considering a customer’s health when deciding whether to sell insurance and how much to charge, 42 U. S. C. §§300gg, 300gg–1; its famous individual mandate requires everyone to maintain insurance coverage or to pay what the Act calls a “penalty,” 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b)(1), and what we have nonetheless called a tax, see *National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius*, 567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 39); and its tax credits help make insurance more affordable. The Court reasons that Congress intended these three reforms to “work together to expand insurance coverage”;and because the first two apply in every State, so must the third. Ante, at 16. This reasoning suffers from no shortage of flaws. To begin with, “even the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity[of] the statute’s text.” *Kloeckner v. Solis*, 568 U. S. ___, ___, n. 4 (2012) (slip op., at 14, n. 4). Statutory design and purpose matter only to the extent they help clarify another wise ambiguous provision. Could anyone maintain with a straight face that §36B is unclear? To mention just the highlights, the Court’s interpretation clashes with a statutory definition, renders words inoperative in at least seven separate provisions of the Act, overlooks the contrast between provisions that say “Exchange” and those that say “Exchange established by the State,” gives the same phrase one meaning for purposes of tax credits but an entirely different meaning for other purposes, and (let us not forget) contradicts the ordinary meaning of the words Congress used. On the other side of the ledger, the Court has come up with nothing more than a general provision that turns out to be controlled by a specific one,a handful of clauses that are consistent with either understanding of establishment by the State, and a resemblance between the tax-credit provision and the rest of the Tax Code. If that is all it takes to make something ambiguous,everything is ambiguous. Having gone wrong in consulting statutory purpose at all, the Court goes wrong again in analyzing it. The purposes of a law must be “collected chiefly from its words,”not “from extrinsic circumstances.” *Sturges v. Crowninshield*, 4 Wheat. 122, 202 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.). Only by concentrating on the law’s terms can a judge hope to uncover the scheme *of the statute*, rather than some other scheme that the judge thinks desirable. Like it or not, the express terms of the Affordable Care Act make only two of the three reforms mentioned by the Court applicable in States that do not establish Exchanges. It is perfectly possible for them to operate independently of tax credits. The guaranteed-issue and community rating requirements continue to ensure that insurance companies treat all customers the same no matter their health, and the individual mandate continues to encourage people to maintain coverage, lest they be “taxed.” The Court protests that without the tax credits, the number of people covered by the individual mandate shrinks, and without a broadly applicable individual mandate the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements “would destabilize the individual insurance market.” Ante, at 15. If true, these projections would show only that the statutory scheme contains a flaw; they would not show that the statute means the opposite of what it says. Moreover, it is a flaw that appeared as well in other parts of the Act. A different title established a long-term-care insurance program with guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements, but without an individual mandate or subsidies. §§8001–8002, 124 Stat. 828–847 (2010). This program never came into effect “only because Congress, in response to actuarial analyses predicting that the [program] would be fiscally unsustainable,repealed the provision in 2013.” *Halbig*, 758 F. 3d, at 410. How could the Court say that Congress would never -Page 33- dream of combining guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements with a narrow individual mandate,when it combined those requirements with no individual mandate in the context of long-term-care insurance? Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services originally interpreted the Act to impose guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements in the Federal Territories, even though the Act plainly does not make the individual mandate applicable there. *Ibid.*; see 26 U. S. C. §5000A(f)(4); 42 U. S. C. §201(f). “This combination, predictably, [threw] individual insurance markets in the territories into turmoil.” *Halbig, supra*, at 410. Responding to complaints from the Territories, the Department at first insisted that it had “no statutory authority” to address the problem and suggested that the Territories “seek legislative relief from Congress” instead. Letter from G. Cohen, Director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, to S. Igisomar, Secretary of Commerce of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (July 12, 2013). The Department changed its mind a year later, after what it described as “a careful review of [the] situation and the relevant statutory language.” Letter from M. Tavenner, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to G. Francis, Insurance Commissioner of the Virgin Islands (July 16, 2014). How could the Court pronounce it “implausible” for Congress to have tolerated instability in insurance markets in States with federal Exchanges, *ante*, at 17, when even the Government maintained until recently that Congress did exactly that in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands? Compounding its errors, the Court forgets that it is no more appropriate to consider one of a statute’s purposes in isolation than it is to consider one of its words that way. No law pursues just one purpose at all costs, and no statutory scheme encompasses just one element. Most relevant here, the Affordable Care Act displays a congressional preference for state participation in the establishment of Exchanges: Each State gets the first opportunity to set up its Exchange, 42 U. S. C. §18031(b); States that take up the opportunity receive federal funding for “activities . . .related to establishing” an Exchange, §18031(a)(3); and the Secretary may establish an Exchange in a State only as a fallback, §18041(c). But setting up and running an Exchange involve significant burdens—meeting strict deadlines, §18041(b), implementing requirements related to the offering of insurance plans, §18031(d)(4), setting up outreach programs, §18031(i), and ensuring that the Exchange is self-sustaining by 2015, §18031(d)(5)(A). A State would have much less reason to take on these burdens if its citizens could receive tax credits no matter who establishes its Exchange. (Now that the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted §36B to authorize tax credits everywhere, by the way, 34 States have failed to set up their own Exchanges. *Ante*, at 6.) So even if making credits available on all Exchanges advances the goal of improving healthcare markets, it frustrates the goal of encouraging state involvement in the implementation of the Act. **This** is what justifies going out of our way to read “established by the State” to mean “established by the State or not established by the State”? Worst of all for the repute of today’s decision, the Court’s reasoning is largely self-defeating. The Court predicts that making tax credits unavailable in States that do not set up their own Exchanges would cause disastrous economic consequences there. If that is so, however, wouldn’t one expect States to react by setting up their own Exchanges? And wouldn’t that outcome satisfy two of the Act’s goals rather than just one: enabling the Act’s reforms to work and promoting state involvement in the Act’s implementation? The Court protests that the very existence of a federal fallback shows that Congress expected that -Page 34- some States might fail to set up their own Exchanges. *Ante*, at 19. So it does. It does not show, however, that Congress expected the number of recalcitrant States to be particularly large. The more accurate the Court’s dire economic predictions, the smaller that number is likely to be. That reality destroys the Court’s pretense that applying the law as written would imperil “the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act.” *Ante*, at 20. All in all, the Court’s arguments about the law’s purpose and design are no more convincing than its arguments about context. IV Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.” *Ante*, at 14. This Court, however, has no free-floating power “to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.” *Lamie v. United States Trustee*, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only when it is patently obvious to a reasonable reader that a drafting mistake has occurred may a court correct the mistake. The occurrence of a misprint may be apparent from the face of the law, as it is where the Affordable Care Act “creates three separate Section 1563s.” *Ante*, at 14. But the Court does not pretend that there is any such indication of a drafting error on the face of §36B. The occurrence of a misprint may also be apparent because a provision decrees an absurd result—a consequence “so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.” *Sturges*, 4 Wheat., at 203. But §36B does not come remotely close to satisfying that demanding standard. It is entirely plausible that tax credits were restricted to state Exchanges deliberately—for example, in order to encourage States to establish their own Exchanges. We therefore have no authority to dismiss the terms of the law as a drafting fumble. Let us not forget that the term “Exchange established by the State” appears twice in §36B and five more times in other parts of the Act that mention tax credits. What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places? No provision of the Act—none at all—contradicts the limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. And as I have already explained, uses of the term “Exchange established by the State” beyond the context of tax credits look anything but accidental. *Supra*, at 6. If there was a mistake here, context suggests it was a substantive mistake in designing this part of the law, not a technical mistake in transcribing it. V The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give *Congress* “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” *Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.*, 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989). Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress “meant [it] to operate.” Ante, at -Page 35- 17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress “meant” tax credits to be available everywhere? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyondall question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges. More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. “If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.” Lamie, supra, at 542. In the meantime, this Court “has no roving license. . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.” *Bay Mills, 572 U. S.*, at ___ (slip op., at 11). Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act“does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” Ante, at 14 15. It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility. Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. If Congress values above everything else the Act’s applicability across the country, it could make tax credits available in every Exchange. If it prizes state involvement in the Act’s implementation, it could continue to limit tax credits to state Exchanges while taking other steps to mitigate the economic consequences predicted by the Court. If Congress wants to accommodate both goals, it could make tax credits available everywhere while offering new incentives for States to set up their own Exchanges. And if Congress thinks that the present design of the Act works well enough, it could do nothing. Congress could also do something else altogether, entirely abandoning the structure of the Affordable Care Act. The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude. Just ponder the significance of the Court’s decision to take matters into its own hands. The Court’s revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Act’s individual mandate, whose scope dependsin part on the availability of credits. What a parody today’s decision makes of Hamilton’s assurances to the people of New York: “The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). * * * -Page 36- Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In *National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius*, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the *incremental* funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUS care. Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% D. N. S. L O O K U P F A I L E D - By Synonymous 1 - %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Well, that was quite a bit of heavy folks at BIG BROTHER know what is reading, but expect yet another FATT best for us much better than we do! issue of LiberTORian next time! You Or it just part of what needs to be see, next issue we'll be talking all done now that they've taken over, about human rights and fat! Trans- and now have to ration, health care? Fat, in particular. The U.S. FDA, As a libertarian, I'll leave it to under our esteemed leader, has made you to decide. Until then, continue trans-fat illegal as of zero hour: to fight for your rights, be it June 17th, 2018. Until then, expect economic, social, or whatever. And Barack and Michelle to hoard a stock since the forces of tyranny are pile for themselves so they'd still striking at freedoms from all sides, be able to enjoy it, while the rest we must be ever-vigilant! of us suffer, since it's obvious the --- E N D O F F I L E ---