Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: TommyGunn on June 25, 2015, 10:45:33 AM
-
The Supreme Court has done it again.
Ignoring the U.S. Constitution, ignoring the plain (admitted) meaning of the law, our renowned justices in a 6-3 decision have kept "Obamacare" intact. The states that did not set up their own "Obamacare" exchanges will continue receiving taxpayer supported entitlements and remain intact.
We can no longer count upon SCOTUS to halt the country from being dragged down the hell-hole of socialism/fascism.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate as to whether or not we could have prior to today .... it might have been debatable then, but it isn't now.
:mad:
-
To be expected; a ratchet only moves one way.
Any liberty preserving decisions that get handed down are just adversarial research for the opposition on how to attack liberty more effectively next time.
-
On a positive note, this should finally put to rest the idea that voting for Republicans will help us get control of the courts.
-
So they ruled against Obamacare, against Congress, and against the bill the President signed into law. I guess Congress shouldn't care, though. It's not as if they knew what new laws they were voting for.
-
On a positive note, this should finally put to rest the idea that voting for Republicans will help us get control of the courts.
↑↑↑↑↑
All my life I've seen ...."republican" presidents nominate "supposedly" conservative justices to SCOTUS only to find, once they're in, they take a hard left turn.
I'd like to see a Democrat president nominate a liberal justice, get him(her) in, and watch as that justice takes a hard right turn.
But I ain't holding my breath.
Enough to turn one into a conspiracy theorist.
>:D
Need to buy more ammo ....... AGAIN. [tinfoil]
-
So they ruled against Obamacare, against Congress, and against the bill the President signed into law. I guess Congress shouldn't care, though. It's not as if they knew what new laws they were voting for.
???
Uh, they ruled FOR Obamacare ..... what are YOU listening to....Pravda? :facepalm:
-
???
Uh, they ruled FOR Obamacare ..... what are YOU listening to....Pravda? :facepalm:
That bulge on the side of his face? It's his tongue.
-
That bulge on the side of his face? It's his tongue.
THANK God for that .... I thought it might be a tumor, in which case he'd be at the mercy of Obamacare. [tinfoil] ;/ [popcorn] [popcorn]
-
On a positive note, this should finally put to rest the idea that voting for Republicans will help us get control of the courts.
..or control of the budget.
Between boehner and mcconnel, I can't figure out which is the bigger, more useless shitbird.
-
Fistful is referencing the fact that the court ruled according to what they decided the intent of the law was, not the actual language.
-
I really hope no one here was expecting a different outcome. If you were expecting something different, I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in.
-
Just got this in an email. I'm now taking bets as to who Abbott is planning to back in the Presidential race.
Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare:
“The Supreme Court abandoned the Constitution to resuscitate a failing healthcare law. Today’s action underscores why it is now more important than ever to ensure we elect a President who will repeal Obamacare and enact real healthcare reforms.”
-
According to American Thinker this wasn't even the worse decision announced today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/worse_than_obamacare_scotus_upholds_disparate_impact_as_discrimination.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
-
I barely lasted 4 minutes into Obama's conference on the decision before I got so boiling mad I couldn't stand it. The outright lies he was telling started at the first word and never stopped.
As to Ron's post on housing, I saw that as well. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it will mean. It seems to be obvious that it's no longer okay to let anyone of any race, creed, gender or color who can afford the house next to you buy it and move in.
-
According to American Thinker this wasn't even the worse decision announced today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/worse_than_obamacare_scotus_upholds_disparate_impact_as_discrimination.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
Yay! Another blackmail angle for Al Sharpton and the race hustler industry.
-
Is it so hard for SCOTUS and fed.gov to even pay lip service to the rule of law?
Guess so.
-
Is it so hard for SCOTUS and fed.gov to even pay lip service to the rule of law?
Guess so.
'Rule of Law' only applies to lawful people.
Welcome to Imperial America.
-
Sad, but not surprising. If the SC was willing to rule against Obamacare they would have done it the first time around.
-
Is it so hard for SCOTUS and fed.gov to even pay lip service to the rule of law?
Guess so.
Just wait until a 2A case arrives again. I'm sure they will hard left it.
-
Fistful is referencing the fact that the court ruled according to what they decided the intent of the law was, not the actual language.
The ..."intent" was perfectly clear: the law intended to strongarm the states into setting up exchanges, or they would find the citizens without subsidies, and that would anger them and turnthem against republican/conservative governors.
Scotus simply reply wrote the law, period.
-
The ..."intent" was perfectly clear: the law intended to strongarm the states into setting up exchanges, or they would find the citizens without subsidies, and that would anger them and turnthem against republican/conservative governors.
Scotus simply reply wrote the law, period.
Exactly. If the court had ruled for the law to be implemented as written, that would have been ruling FOR Obamacare. The court ruled that the Obamacare law should not be followed.
-
Just wait until a 2A case arrives again. I'm sure they will hard left it.
Nope.
I expect the expansion of gun rights if anything.
Throw the most vocal opponents of Imperial America a bone, especially one that gives them the illusion of being able to defeat tyranny, then marginalize and/or eliminate them at will when they do become a minor distraction threat.
-
Exactly. If the court had ruled for the law to be implemented as written, that would have been ruling FOR Obamacare. The court ruled that the Obamacare law should not be followed.
Talk about twisting interpretations and differing perspectives ...... :facepalm:
They ruled "in favor" of Obamacare as the ruling allows the law to remain intact despite the clear meaning of 4 words. It is an atrocity of a decision. It is the second time Roberts has decided the priority of SCOTUS ought to be to interpret a law in question in whatever manner it takes to support a congressional vote & presidential signing rather than apply it to the Constitution & B.O.R.s and see if, OBJECTIVELY, it meets the test.
Fistful, I "get" where you're coming from. Really. I just differ in perspective.
And I am too pissed off and dispirited at this point to be getting into a debate so let's just "agree to disagree" on this .... OK?
-
No, I will not agree to disagree. :P The law was not allowed to remain intact. SCOTUS rewrote the law, and gave us a different version of Obamacare than what was signed into law. If SCOTUS had preserved this law intact, if they had simply interpreted the law as per their job description, they would have ruled the way you and I both want them to.
-
No, I will not agree to disagree. :P The law was not allowed to remain intact. SCOTUS rewrote the law, and gave us a different version of Obamacare than what was signed into law. If SCOTUS had preserved this law intact, if they had simply interpreted the law as per their job description, they would have ruled the way you and I both want them to.
The law most ABSOLUTLY was allowed to remain intact. Did anyone change out those 4 words in question? No.
I don't think you've been listening.
However, :P right back.
-
The law most ABSOLUTLY was allowed to remain intact. Did anyone change out those 4 words in question? No.
I don't think you've been listening.
However, :P right back.
actually I completely agree with both fistful and the dissenting justices.
This is the second time now they've essentially remade portions of the law to ignore intent and redefine plain English.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Can someone articulate how Obamacare violates the constitution?
-
Can someone articulate how Obamacare violates the constitution?
Obamacare doesn't violate the constitution. Obamacare is just a bunch of words, and words can mean whatever you want. The constitution is just words, too, so it means whatever you want, too.
Haven't you been paying attention?
-
Obamacare doesn't violate the constitution. Obamacare is just a bunch of words, and words can mean whatever you want. The constitution is just words, too, so it means whatever you want, too.
Haven't you been paying attention?
I've read King v Burwell, and didn't see that line. It's about construing a federal statute and seems quite reasonable.
-
Of course they didn't really mean exchanges set up by the states meant exchanges set up by the states.
We will all just pretend that we didn't hear Gruber (the architect of the law who wasn't really the architect that turned out to have a real big role similar to an architect) actually state that state exchanges meant state exchanges.
And since when is being a stickler for exacting language important in the field of law anyway :rofl:
-
Ron, did you actually read the decision? That's a silly comment to make about it if you did.
-
Truth be told I checked out on the subject after the videos of Gruber saying that the wording was meant to force the states into setting up exchanges. We know what the intent of the law was because we heard it from the horses mouth.
I never expected it to be repealed, replaced or be struck down by the court.
Instead of a socialized system or a free market system of health care we have a fascist system of health care. The government and the industry have decided and the people will just have to make do.
-
Can someone articulate how Obamacare violates the constitution?
What part of the Constitution authorizes the U.S. Government to force citizens to purchase healthcare insurance whether they want to, or not? Please direct me to that passage .... all the while, keeping the tenth amendment in mind.
If you remember the tenth amendment ..............................
-
actually I completely agree with both fistful and the dissenting justices.
This is the second time now they've essentially remade portions of the law to ignore intent and redefine plain English.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK. I've landed in The Twilight Zone.
I agree with the dissenting judges but not fistful. You can't agree with both unless you find yourself in the same universe in which both the irresistable force and the immoveable object both exist simultaneously. [tinfoil]
-
Can someone articulate how Obamacare violates the constitution?
I think we hashed that out in the last Obamacare SCOTUS case. This case was not about the constitutionality of that law, as De Selby well knows. He's only trolling here. King v. Burwell was a question of whether laws must be implemented as written, or whether laws can be implemented in whatever way the Feds belatedly wish they had written said laws.
OK. I've landed in The Twilight Zone.
I agree with the dissenting judges but not fistful. You can't agree with both unless you find yourself in the same universe in which both the irresistable force and the immoveable object both exist simultaneously. [tinfoil]
fistful agrees with the dissenting justices, who said that the law should remain intact, and Obamacare allowed to fail. Tommygun, a lot of people have said that Obamacare was intentionally designed to fail, to damage American healthcare, so that a "single-payer" system would appear the only solution. I don't know whether that's true, or whether this mode of failure was intentional, but we do know that this was a designed-in weak point of the ACA. We want that weak point preserved, as did the dissenting justices.
But if you don't want to talk about this anymore, I could share my theories on how cornbread caused the civil war of northron aggression between the states.
-
What part of the Constitution authorizes the U.S. Government to force citizens to purchase healthcare insurance whether they want to, or not? Please direct me to that passage .... all the while, keeping the tenth amendment in mind.
If you remember the tenth amendment ..............................
The power to tax allows the government to use taxes for policy reasons.
Fistful didn't really read the opinion. It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do. If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.
Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.
-
Can someone articulate how Obamacare violates the constitution?
First we have to decide is it a tax? Or not a tax we have two stories on that
-
I've read King v Burwell, and didn't see that line. It's about construing a federal statute and seems quite reasonable.
Is it their job to construe something
Can someone articulate how Obamacare violates the constitution?
-
In appellate court decisions, it is common for the court to attempt to derive the intent of the legislative body in drafting the law. The court uses this intent in interpreting the law.
-
...and we have on video one of the primary experts involved in the legislative process explaining how if a state doesn't set up an exchange then their citizens cannot receive subsidies. It was a feature, not a bug.
Public pressure was supposed to force the states to set up exchanges.
That was the intent of the clear wording regardless of what the Supreme Court in their Orwellian ruling has decreed.
What the legislators failed to foresee was how many states would refuse to set up exchanges and how little public support Obamacare would have.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-if-youre-a-state-and-you-dont-set-up-an-exchange-that-means-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/
-
In appellate court decisions, it is common for the court to attempt to derive the intent of the legislative body in drafting the law. The court uses this intent in interpreting the law.
The intent of the legislature was the exact opposite of what the words said, but of course they didn't know what it said because it hadn't been passed yet =D
-
The power to tax allows the government to use taxes for policy reasons.
Fistful didn't really read the opinion. It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do. If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.
Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.
The most amusing thing is the contortions insipid leftists will perform to get their little slice of socialism to benifit their worthless meaningless lives. Doesn't matter, life will go on, the productive will still produce where they are allowed to, though they will have a million little ticks and leaches sucking their blood. At some point the parasites will kill the host.
-
The power to tax allows the government to use taxes for policy reasons.
So, tax or fine? Even Obama used whatever word best fit him at the time.
Either way, this still is a specious way for the government to get around the fact that the Constitution granted no right to the federal government to force people to buy anything.
Fistful didn't really read the opinion. It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do. If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.
Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.
That's the problem; the wording WASN'T ambiguous it was very clear; the STATES need to set up exchanges so the people can be subsidized. We have plenty from that arrogant whackadoodle Herr Gruber to KNOW just exactly what the government was up to.
As to considering "what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes,"
in the long run IMHO I believe we would be far better off if the court would limit itself to strict application of the written law in question to the Constitution. Should nasty consequences arise and cause people grief ..... there's a lesson in there; NEXT VOTING DAY, BE MORE CAREFUL FOR WHOM YOU PULL THAT LEVER! Maybe if the kongresskritters get enough grief from the voters they might listen.
What do parents do with a child who will not listen? Consider the following: A couple's young son likes to play in the front yard -- fine, but he often runs out into a busy street. The father runs out, grabs his hand and drags him back, and wants to discipline the kid, but the loving mother (being the so called "weaker vessel"), who loves her dear son and wishes he experience no grief, intervenes and prevents it. This pattern continues until one day the kid runs out and !*WHAM!* a Mack truck turns the kid into a grease stain on the tarmac. Now the mother is REALLY UPSET.
Okay, not a great analogy perhaps. But as the mother refused to see the consequences, so are our knngresskritters also not taking any consequences when SCOTUS will twist the -- YES -- plain meaning of the words.
Sometimes "perverse/frustrating outcomes" can be a great educational tool.
When it's used...............
-
.....fistful agrees with the dissenting justices, who said that the law should remain intact, and Obamacare allowed to fail. Tommygun, a lot of people have said that Obamacare was intentionally designed to fail, to damage American healthcare, so that a "single-payer" system would appear the only solution. I don't know whether that's true, or whether this mode of failure was intentional, but we do know that this was a designed-in weak point of the ACA. We want that weak point preserved, as did the dissenting justices.
But if you don't want to talk about this anymore, I could share my theories on how cornbread caused the civil war of northron aggression between the states.
Yeah ... I am about 95% ready to endorse that theory myself.
I don't give a ***** about your theories about cornbread, but I do find it tasty as part of a traditional southern breakfast.
....And there are TWO 'n"s in "TOMMYGUNN." :mad: .............. ;)
-
Yeah ... I am about 95% ready to endorse that theory myself.
I don't give a ***** about your theories about cornbread, but I do find it tasty as part of a traditional southern breakfast.
....And there are TWO 'n"s in "TOMMYGUNN." :mad: .............. ;)
I only eat cornbread if it's made in the shape of the Confederate flag. With sugar.
-
NEXT VOTING DAY, BE MORE CAREFUL FOR WHOM YOU PULL THAT LEVER!
Roberts was appointed by BUSH.
-
Roberts was appointed by BUSH.
Something to remember in the primaries.
-
Something to remember in the primaries.
Oh Gawd, is Dubya running for a third term? [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [popcorn]
-
Oh Gawd, is Dubya running for a third term?
No, but don't forget he's got three brothers to carry on the dynasty.
-
Oh Gawd, is Dubya running for a third term? [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [popcorn]
Pretty much.
Given the last two SCOTUS rulings, I'm wondering whether I can vote for a Republican at all - even Rand or Cruz. They will have some work to do, to get my vote in the general.
And no, I'm absolutely not going to vote for the Libertarian Party. This country really needs a viable Not Left Wing party. :facepalm:
-
Pretty much.
Given the last two SCOTUS rulings, I'm wondering whether I can vote for a Republican at all - even Rand or Cruz. They will have some work to do, to get my vote in the general.
And no, I'm absolutely not going to vote for the Libertarian Party. This country really needs a viable Not Left Wing party. :facepalm:
If they can't earn my vote Im considering not wasting my time trying to select a candidate I can live with. I'll put my time into something more productive. Like selecting a nice island in the South Pacific with white sandy beaches, off the hurricane routes, and a population of cute topless indigenous women I can sink a confederate battle flag into and claim as my own. Between me and a few recruits I'm pretty sure we'd have the firepower to make ourselves at home.
Or voting for Trump, cause he won't *expletive deleted*ck the place up more than Bush and would at least be entertaining so would be of some use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sinking a flag into a cute topless indigenous woman usually results in shrieks of pain and red stuff leaking out of said cute topless indigenous woman.
But I understand your point and I am right there with you.
-
Sinking a flag into a cute topless indigenous woman usually results in shrieks of pain and red stuff leaking out of said cute topless indigenous woman.
But I understand your point and I am right there with you.
We'll reserve such for the onry sorts who don't take well to their new overlords and flag.
And one recruit is good. Need more. More recruits mean a bigger island. And a bigger island yields more potential for the number of indigenous females. Hell we get a big enough one we might even be able to find a Goat to keep Jamis warm at night.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We'll reserve such for the onry sorts who don't take well to their new overlords and flag.
And one recruit is good. Need more. More recruits mean a bigger island. And a bigger island yields more potential for the number of indigenous females. Hell we get a big enough one we might even be able to find a Goat to keep Jamis warm at night.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Animal abuse :P
-
Animal abuse :P
Hey it's no business of ours what a happy couple does in their private tiki hut
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Fistful didn't really read the opinion. It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do. If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.
Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.
I never said I read the majority's absurd decision. I base my opinion on the facts of the case, as I understand them. I believe it was Roberts who said in regards to his first decision on Obamacare that the Court's job is not to save the voters from the stupid laws their representatives pass. He has changed his mind, apparently. The law was intended, and so written, to work in a certain way, and not in another. The Court has ruled that it will work in the "another" it specifically ruled out. The Court rewrote the law. Whether or not the law itself was unconstitutional, this decision was.
-
I never said I read the majority's absurd decision. I base my opinion on the facts of the case, as I understand them. I believe it was Roberts who said in regards to his first decision on Obamacare that the Court's job is not to save the voters from the stupid laws their representatives pass. He has changed his mind, apparently. The law was intended, and so written, to work in a certain way, and not in another. The Court has ruled that it will work in the "another" it specifically ruled out. The Court rewrote the law. Whether or not the law itself was unconstitutional, this decision was.
That's why it's important to read the decision - what congress intended is considered at length.
-
Then how do you explain/justify the supplementary evidence, Gruber, Pelosi, et al.? If context matters, then context matters. Unless it doesn't match your objective, in which case you cherry-pick the appropriate information.
-
Then how do you explain/justify the supplementary evidence, Gruber, Pelosi, et al.? If context matters, then context matters. Unless it doesn't match your objective, in which case you cherry-pick the appropriate information.
You should actually read the decision. Again, this is covered.
-
Really? I read it and you see something I missed. Could you be specific?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The court knows what the Democrats wanted to accomplish.
It doesn't really matter what the words say it is all about the good intentions.
-
You should actually read the decision. Again, this is covered.
Congress should have actually read the fokking law that they voted to pass ;/
-
Fistful didn't really read the opinion. It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do. If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.
Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.
However, the wording is NOT ambiguous. The wording is, in fact, very clear and straightforward. The tax exemption is for health insurance exchanges established by the states What could be less ambiguous than that? Read the dissents -- this point is made in the dissenting opinions, and VERY pointedly stated in one of them.
It used to be a fundamental premise that the courts and enforcement authorities could not "interpret" a law to mean something other than what it says. Yet in this case, the decision does exactly that -- and admits up front that it is doing so. Which means that, from this day forward, people in the United States can no longer act on the assumption that any law means what it says. The Supreme Court has now declared open season on the concept that words have meanings.
-
I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises. When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.
-
I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises. When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.
Are you suggesting we should praise them when they F**K up and criticize them when they do right? ???
-
I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises. When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.
So when the Court makes a good decision, we congratulate them; when they screw up, we criticize them. Yeah, that's fascinating.
-
I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises. When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.
It amazes me that liberty is being lost almost all across the board except in this one area.
It will be interesting to see how the government eventually disarms the population.
No doubt it will be a case in which Roberts disappoints once again and after reading the decision DeSelby will grudgingly agree that the constitution in fact calls for the disarming of the population =D
-
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.
-
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 intent of clear language ???
;/
-
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 intent behind the 2nd is pretty easy to ascertain through reading materials from that era by those involved in the drafting of the constitution, as well as their contemporaries. The wording while clunky to us is not really that unclear either, if you are remotely familiar with the rules of grammar.
In this case we have the primary paid consultant on video expressing an opposite opinion of what the court ruled.
Early on there were warnings that if a state didn't set up an exchange their citizens weren't going to get tax credits.
The words are very exact and precise as one should expect in a law.
The court basically decided to change the legislation by fiat due to the unintended consequences.
It wasn't the intent of the words (the law) they interpreted, it was the intent of the outcome they interpreted.
-
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 aren't the 2nd Amendment cases based on telling the government what it can't do and can't enforce, while the ACA stuff is about what the government CAN enforce?
-
The court could have always ruled that the law meant what it said, and then issued a stay to allow Congress a chance to correct its error, if indeed it was an error.
-
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did take one ConLaw class and have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. It seems to me your critique is valid when predicated on the assertion that SCOTUS applies consistent reasoning and principles of judicial review. I don't see evidence in this case to support that notion. I assume you do?
-
^^^Ha! I have always thought that one of the perks of being the SCOTUS is you and nobody else gets to decide when stare decisis is important and when it is not. It is a hoot to read some of the decisions over the years and see the analysis as to why the Court did or did not follow stare decisis in making the current decision.
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I did take one ConLaw class and have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. It seems to me your critique is valid when predicated on the assertion that SCOTUS applies consistent reasoning and principles of judicial review. I don't see evidence in this case to support that notion. I assume you do?
Note that in the SCOTUScare ruling that the SCOTUS took it upon themselves to derive the intent of the legislators who wrote the law. A day previous, SCOTUS struck down the Texas law and upheld the doctrine of disparate impact...because SCOTUS wrote that they should not derive the intent of the legislators who wrote the law.
Consistency, constitutionality, and the law has nothing to do with gov't nowadays, except as a club to beat the the unconnected.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:rofl: 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Gotta love the entertainment provided here at APS. It's amusing how everyone continues to joust with De Selby over his nonsensical arguments.
-
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 ... :facepalm:
-
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.