Obamacare now to be called SCOTUScare

[roo_ster]

Time for Marbury vs Madison to be scrapped. 

It is unconstitutional power usurped by SCOTUS anyway.  Let the three serve as true checks on each others' power.  Congress may so legislate, but the Executive may refuse to execute.  The Executive may want to do some thing, but Congress can refuse to fund it.  And the Judiciary can exercise the powers granted it by COTUS and not be the black robed 800lb gorilla.

[Perd Hapley]

That's why it's important to read the decision - what congress intended is considered at length. 

I read the first few pages of the decision, which clearly states that "established by the State" doesn't really mean established by the state. Well, I'm not completely naive. I've seen leftists deny the noses on their own faces before. It's clear they are doing so again. I guess you could try your "oh, but you have to read 47 pages of a Supreme Court opinion in order to understand the brilliance of it" argument on others, though.

[Perd Hapley]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

  Yeah, OK. Like I just told DeSelby, I know the difference between rainwater on my leg versus the other thing. Good luck with the rubes, though.

[makattak]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

"The Court" is not a undifferentiated whole. The members vote in different ways. 

The members who vote for the clear language of the 2nd Amendment are not the ones voting against the clear language of the PPACA here.

[De Selby]

I read the first few pages of the decision, which clearly states that "established by the State" doesn't really mean established by the state. Well, I'm not completely naive. I've seen leftists deny the noses on their own faces before. It's clear they are doing so again. I guess you could try your "oh, but you have to read 47 pages of a Supreme Court opinion in order to understand the brilliance of it" argument on others, though.

What's funny is that is that you got nearly the opposite if the argument - a register established by the Feds has to have the same features as one established by the state.  Not "it doesn't mean established by the state."

All of the requirements that an Exchange must meet are in Section 18031, so it is sensible to regard all Exchanges as established under that provision. In addition, every time the Act uses the word “Exchange,” the definitional provision requires that we substitute the phrase “Exchange established under section 18031.” If Federal Exchanges were not established under Section 18031, therefore, literally none of the Act’s re- quirements would apply to them. Finally, the Act repeat- edly uses the phrase “established under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” in situations where it would make no sense to distinguish between State and Federal Exchanges.

Section 18041 refutes the argument that Congress believed it was offering the States a deal they would not refuse. That section provides that, if a State elects not to establish an Exchange, the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” 42 U. S. C. §18041(c)(1)(A). The whole point of that provision is to create a federal fallback in case a State chooses not to establish its own Exchange. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, Congress did not believe it was offering States a deal they would not refuse—it expressly addressed what would happen if a State did refuse the deal.

But in petitioners’ view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub- sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of “applicable taxpayer” or in some other prominent manner. It would not have used such a wind- ing path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit.5

[Hawkmoon]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

But Heller and McDonald were not instances of using the majority's guess as to what the intent of Congress "must have been," those cases were instances of stating that the language of the 2A means what it says, and citing contemporaneous writings of the Founders as proof.

In this case (the ACA decision), the Court simply took a guess at what they thought the intent of Congress "must have been," and used that not to support the language of the law but to support reading the law to say something other than what it clearly said.

Those are not analogous situations at all. One holds that "The law means what it says, here's why." The other holds that "The law doesn't mean what it says, so here's what we think it was supposed to mean."

[MillCreek]

I was not referring to Heller or McDonald.  There have been other 2A cases on the issue of intent.   A Westlaw search will reveal them for you.

[De Selby]

Apparently the rule on APS is that if a major conservative project succeeds in the supreme court, it is impartially following the law, and if a major liberal project succeeds, the court is making up the law as it goes along.

The presumption of course is that the constitution, founders, and any rational analysis of federal law accords with conservative free market principles.   I shouldn't have to explain why that's beyond ridiculous.

[roo_ster]

Apparently the rule on APS is that if a major conservative project succeeds in the supreme court, it is impartially following the law, and if a major liberal project succeeds, the court is making up the law as it goes along.

The presumption of course is that the constitution, founders, and any rational analysis of federal law accords with conservative free market principles.   I shouldn't have to explain why that's beyond ridiculous.

The cotus was written according to classical liberal principles.  That was made explicit at the time.  That means in contemporary terms conervatism  and free market economics.  Not rediculous but merely reality.

[De Selby]

The cotus was written according to classical liberal principles.  That was made explicit at the time.  That means in contemporary terms conervatism  and free market economics.  Not rediculous but merely reality.

Classical liberal principles!?  Like say, taxes, regulated trade, government banks, imperial monopolies, conscription, and many other features of the mercantilist/napoleanic states?

[RocketMan]

Gotta love the entertainment provided here at APS.  It's amusing how everyone continues to joust with De Selby over his nonsensical arguments.

[Tallpine]

Gotta love the entertainment provided here at APS.  It's amusing how everyone continues to joust with De Selby over his nonsensical arguments.

Yeah, I'd almost forgotten how much "fun" this place was ...   

[TommyGunn]

Classical liberal principles!?  Like say, taxes, regulated trade, government banks, imperial monopolies, conscription, and many other features of the mercantilist/napoleanic states?

Nice of you to try to impose on the historical document the more modern corruptions that have been imposed on it since .......

What Roo_ster said.
He was talking about what the document was, not what our country has devolved into.