Pretty interesting ruling. I would like to hear thoughts regarding the ruling specifically, not about the good/bad of Obamacare.
In my mind the ruling is wrong. It is my understanding that the ruling was made by what the Justice's thought Congress "meant" when they wrote the law, rather than what is actually written.
This is a consequence of "passing a bill to see what is in it".
Scalia's dissenting opinion says it all.
The court is rewriting the law. That's not their job. They've now done this twice, so his suggestion that they change the name to SCOTUSCare, he's right. Roberts has decided he likes this law, and he's doing everything he can to assure it stays on the books, even if he has to change it himself. Legislating from the judicial branch is not what the founding fathers envisioned.
As with all SCOTUS rulings the winning side will cheer justice has been served and the losing side will declare the judiciary is abusing its power. Same old same old, since 1803.
Vicbow pretty much nailed it. I don't feel like arguing with FBT tonight, so I'll just say that the correct ruling was made. The alternative would have been to shut millions of Americans off from affordable healthcare.
Quote:Vicbow pretty much nailed it. I don't feel like arguing with FBT tonight, so I'll just say that the correct ruling was made. The alternative would have been to shut millions of Americans off from affordable healthcare.
Yeah, the words don't mean a thing.
Quote:Vicbow pretty much nailed it. I don't feel like arguing with FBT tonight, so I'll just say that the correct ruling was made. The alternative would have been to shut millions of Americans off from affordable healthcare.
But think of the ideology!
Quote:Yeah, the words don't mean a thing.
When a literal interpretation would completely undermine the intent of the entire program, common sense dictates that no, they don't.
It certainly is a cautionary tale in the "we have to pass it to see what's in it" category, but in this case there is no doubt what the intent was, the Supreme Court has already found that there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that intent, and for that reason, upholding it was the right decision.
We no longer interpret law we interpret intent that's some funny stuff.
Quote:Vicbow pretty much nailed it. I don't feel like arguing with FBT tonight, so I'll just say that the correct ruling was made. The alternative would have been to shut millions of Americans off from affordable healthcare.
Since when did the consequences of a decision become the deciding factor of interpreting a law? Regardless good or bad their job is to interpret the law, they openly said the literal interpretation would've lead to an unsatisfactory decision so they just looked at the intent. That is such a garbage and dangerous precedent to set liberals should be furious.
We now have a situation where the court can simply say regardless of what the law says we believe the intent is _____ so that's the law.
Quote:Since when did the consequences of a decision become the deciding factor of interpreting a law? Regardless good or bad their job is to interpret the law, they openly said the literal interpretation would've lead to an unsatisfactory decision so they just looked at the intent. That is such a garbage and dangerous precedent to set liberals should be furious.
We now have a situation where the court can simply say regardless of what the law says we believe the intent is _____ so that's the law.
It's been that way since Dred Scott, if not earlier.
Quote:Since when did the consequences of a decision become the deciding factor of interpreting a law? Regardless good or bad their job is to interpret the law, they openly said the literal interpretation would've lead to an unsatisfactory decision so they just looked at the intent. That is such a garbage and dangerous precedent to set liberals should be furious.
We now have a situation where the court can simply say regardless of what the law says we believe the intent is _____ so that's the law.
Legislative intent is considered when legislation is not clear or doesn't address a particular issue. It's been that way for a long time.
Quote:Legislative intent is considered when legislation is not clear or doesn't address a particular issue. It's been that way for a long time.
The issue is addressed, it was poorly written but that's different then simply not being written. Legislative intent has been used to fill in the gaps when laws don't specify a situation, here we have the court saying well the law says ____ but we know they really meant ____ so that's the law not what is written.
In before someone calls for succession instead of secession.
Can someone give examples of when the US Supreme Court ruled on what they thought the law's intent was versus what it actually said? It's always been my understanding that they rule exclusively on the letter of the law. They may rule in favor of some aspects of a law / case, and they may invalidate some other aspects of the same law / case. Generally, they decide on what is or isn't Constitutionally protected.
If they said that they believe the law, as is, is constitutionally permissible, then I'd (kind of) understand their ruling. However, if what OP is saying is true, then they're saying that the law is only permissible when interpreted as they choose to interpret.
All this ruling did was verify that there is no difference between the two sides in this argument. Both parties serve the same dark agenda that has enslaved mankind since the beginning of recorded history.
Quote:In before someone calls for succession instead of secession.
We need a plan for succession where only Justices who actually want to protect our Constitutional governmental processes are confirmed.
Quote:Can someone give examples of when the US Supreme Court ruled on what they thought the law's intent was versus what it actually said? It's always been my understanding that they rule exclusively on the letter of the law. They may rule in favor of some aspects of a law / case, and they may invalidate some other aspects of the same law / case. Generally, they decide on what is or isn't Constitutionally protected.
If they said that they believe the law, as is, is constitutionally permissible, then I'd (kind of) understand their ruling. However, if what OP is saying is true, then they're saying that the law is only permissible when interpreted as they choose to interpret.
Start with the referenced Marbury v Madison verdict. It was about packing Executive appointments right before the end of the Executive's term. The Chief Justice used that verdict to set the precedent for most of how we run the government.
Quote:We no longer interpret law we interpret intent that's some funny stuff.
Actually, Eric, it's been common for courts to rule on intent of laws when there are some ambiguities.
Quote:Start with the referenced Marbury v Madison verdict. It was about packing Executive appointments right before the end of the Executive's term. The Chief Justice used that verdict to set the precedent for most of how we run the government.
Nice, you beat me to it.
There's also a chevron case that ruled on intent as well. In New Mexico, there was a ruling from a case we call covenant (it's the name of the business that sued the state) that also ruled on the intent of a law that was on the books.
Quote:We need a plan for succession where only Justices who actually want to protect our Constitutional governmental processes are confirmed.
You want politicians who only read poll results to try their hand at reading minds?