King v. Burwell illustrates the folly of nominating lawyers to the Supreme Court

80 percent of lawyers are left of center.  One hundred percent of lawyers earn their living helping people navigate the ever more complex labyrinth of law and regulation.  This labyrinth by its very nature enriches and empowers the legal profession.  It is clearly too much to ask of career lawyers that they act against the interests of their class and guild.  Yet for America to recover and thrive the legal profession must be crushed utterly.  Perhaps the most important constitutional amendment we could pass would be to ban anyone who has ever practiced law from holding a Supreme Court seat.  So long as there is no check on lawyers but other lawyers the state and its laws will continue to metastasize until it's strangling thievery covers every inch of the body politic.

It was Roberts who helped rewrite Obamacare the first time around, making a penalty into a tax and, for the first time in history, allowing American government to coerce every citizen into buying a product from a private company as part of its power to regulate commerce.

Roberts, abandoning law, laments that Obamacare was drafted in a haphazard and vague way, right before ruling that laws can be implemented in any way the executive branch sees fit, as long as judges deem its intentions righteous.

Once we pass massive pieces of legislation that effectively hand entire industries to regulatory agencies, we are allowing the executive branch to govern in any way it sees fit. That said, it's doubtful that SCOTUS would allow the same rationalizations used for King v. Burwell to be employed for any legislation it found distasteful. Though Republican presidents keep nominating judges who disappoint conservatives, you can be assured that Hillary Clinton would not disappoint liberals with her picks.

Lawyers are human ticks. Squish 'em.