Hope to repeal Obamacare

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***It's Roberts' theory. It's a longstanding debate.

He cites precedent for the logic of the majority. You haven't provided any for yours.

Anyhow, the GOP must be relieved that they are off the hook for making any actual decisions beyond sniping.

Of course. IT's a different viewpoint. SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

For a guy who hates lawyer bullshit I'm shocked at how frequently you approve of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

SOme think words have meaning.

Of course words have meaning, but often that meaning is clear only when you look at the context, the words before and the words after the little snippit you have decided to isolate.

Consider this example. Suppose you are looking to hire someone, and are reading recommendation letters. One letter includes the sentence:
"You will be fortunate if you can get Jerry to work for your company."
That's pretty ambiguous, I think you will agree. It could mean two totally opposite things. Now you read further:
"You will be fortunate if you can get Jerry to work for your company. He is the best employee I have ever had." Now the meaning is clear. Suppose instead the letter continued:
"You will be fortunate if you can get Jerry to work for your company. He never did an honest days work while in my employment." Again the meaning is clear. Context is important.

Sometimes I think lawyers make their living on two things: parsing words so as to twist their meaning in favor of a client, and making the perfect the enemy of the good. I'm sure there are many that do not fit these descriptions, but the ones that make headlines seem to fit pretty well. I can understand why a lawyer would feel threatened when the Supreme Court chooses to look at the phrase in question in context, as that threatens the whole legal strategy of splitting hairs.

By the way, am I mistaken in thinking that the term "the State" is sometimes used to refer to the government as a whole, both Federal and State?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Amazon 7]

RonD1120

It is now to be referred to as "SCOTUScare."

I especially love Scalia's whining..... trying to SCOTU Scare... indeed.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

What do you mean by that?

[lawrocket 3]

Andy9o8

Quote

SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

What do you mean by that?

I have no issue with looking toward intent when something is vague or ambiguous.

And I appreciate what GeorgiaDon wrote, as well. I see the point

But when a word is defined and used it is clear. It is plain. The State. It means the State. And not the Federal government.

It doesn't matter what a word means. It doesn't matter that the tax break was intended to induce the States into running their own exchanges. The specific intent was to exclude tax breaks for federal exchanges.

The intent didn't work. The law did not work as intended. The actual specific intent of the statute was to leave it out. And it backfired.

So the law was broken. And the SCOTUS ignored the specific intent in order to find some general intent. The Court played legislature. This is my problem with intent. One can find any degree of intent one wants.
Congress meant to exclude federal subsidies? Well, they also intended for the ACA to work.

When I go to Vegas I intend to win. So I bluffed the hell out of those guys and they called me on it? In order to make things right, I should just take the pot anyway.

Only in politics. That's what I don't like the most. Political questions are the SCOTUS bread and butter.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

lawrocket

***

Quote

SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

What do you mean by that?

I have no issue with....

It was a one-liner, actually.

That said, very interesting post, thank you.

[headoverheels 291]

GeorgiaDon

By the way, am I mistaken in thinking that the term "the State" is sometimes used to refer to the government as a whole, both Federal and State?

Don

That occurred to me also. When I searched through the text of ACA, it does not seem that the use of "the State" refers to the Federal government.

[Andy9o8 0]

headoverheels

***
By the way, am I mistaken in thinking that the term "the State" is sometimes used to refer to the government as a whole, both Federal and State?

Don

That occurred to me also. When I searched through the text of ACA, it does not seem that the use of "the State" refers to the Federal government.

In this context, no, it would not mean the Federal government, only a state's government.
FWIW, modern federal statutes in the US generally would not refer to the Federal government as "the State"; that's more political science-speak than it is federal statute-speak.

[kallend 1,622]

lawrocket

***

Quote

SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

What do you mean by that?

I have no issue with looking toward intent when something is vague or ambiguous.

And I appreciate what GeorgiaDon wrote, as well. I see the point

But when a word is defined and used it is clear. It is plain. The State. It means the State. And not the Federal government.


Roberts made a very clear and cogent argument, with precedents, as to why there was ambiguity and Chevron deference.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******

Quote

SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

What do you mean by that?

I have no issue with looking toward intent when something is vague or ambiguous.

And I appreciate what GeorgiaDon wrote, as well. I see the point

But when a word is defined and used it is clear. It is plain. The State. It means the State. And not the Federal government.


Roberts made a very clear and cogent argument, with precedents, as to why there was ambiguity and Chevron deference.

Yes. I am very free to disagree with clear and cogent arguments. He made a clear and cogent argument as to why the word State should not mean "state" in this instance

it is also clear to me that the majority worked backwards. They dug for a reason to ignore the plain language. They then provided precedent, kinda saying, "we do this all the time."

And in doing so, ignored the evidence that the specific intent of Congress was to leave federal subsidies out in order to induce the states to take t up. When thirty states or so didn't bite then the President said that Congress was only kidding. The all along meant to put that in so he went with it. And then thebSCOTUS ignored what the actual intent was in order to find a more general intent.

"But he actually intended to murder the victim. He said he was going to hunt him down and stab him in the gut. It's what he did."
"Yeah, but it was all a part of his general scheme to make the world a better place. Therefore we find no malice." I have a problem with this way of thinking.

Again. I understand why that came about. For want of two of three words a whole government program is put at risk.

Thus, as Roberts explained, precedent is to presume a law as Constitutional. It's also to presume a law is valid.

Additionally, however, is that the first rule of statutory interpretation is to give words their plain meaning. Roberts eve wrote that the arguments of the plain meaning are "strong." then he wrote that a plain meaning may turn out untenable in light of the statute as a whole and cited a case.

Then Roberts did something and did not cite previous authority. "in this instance the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."

Then Roberts cited Palmer:"reliance on context And structure in statutory interpretation is a subtle business calling for great wariness lest what professes tk be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself." Cite. Then Roberts wrote,"such reliance is appropriate in this case and leads us to conclude that [any Exchange gets tax credits]. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts and to avoid the type of calamities result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." see Page 21.

What Roberts said is that he is legislating. They are fixing it. While other cases warned against it, fuck it. He gave this concern two paragraphs. Two paragraphs. Two effing paragraphs. And said despite the warnings of the past he is going to legislate it, anyway.

In neither case cited by Roberts did the SCOTUS actually insert words. 510 US 332 was a case where both parties argued over the interpretation of a section of law. One said to meant one thing. The other said it meant another thing. The plain meaning failed so context was provided in the statutory scheme as a whole.

And in 308 US 79, the SCOTUS refused to put words into a statute that would give power that the statute did not give. "petitioners ask us to say that district judges in twenty nine states have effective power... To set aside regulatory systems of these twenty nine states, with all the consequences implied for those communities. Congress gave no such power."

As much as you want to talk about precedent, take a look at it. Take a look at where he did not cite to precedent. Take a look at where stare decisis was found to be inconsistent with the goals.

Roberts inserted words into a statute that were not there. Context is for understanding a law. Context Had never before been used as justification for judicial you amending a law.

This is not precedented. Otherwise Roberts would have provided cites tk where it was done before. Roberts merely cited the warnings against doing it and then did it anyway.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RonD1120 58]

I goofed, proper reference omitted. The term came from Justice Scalia.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,622]

RonD1120

I goofed, proper reference omitted. The term came from Justice Scalia.

The hypocrite who objects to five unelected judges making Constitutional decisions he doesn't like on marriage, but was one of the five unelected judges who decided that corporations have 1st Amendment rights like people do.

That Scalia.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,622]

lawrocket

Of course. IT's a different viewpoint. SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded.

Rather like "corporation" = "person", eh? Scalia, Alito and Thomas would never go for that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not talking about Scalia or corporations. In talking about a court drafting legislation.

What are your thoughts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

I'm not talking about Scalia or corporations. In talking about a court drafting legislation.

What are your thoughts.

What are your thoughts on "the tyranny of the majority"?

[turtlespeed 212]

Amazon

***I'm not talking about Scalia or corporations. In talking about a court drafting legislation.

What are your thoughts.

What are your thoughts on "the tyranny of the majority"?

You first.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***I'm not talking about Scalia or corporations. In talking about a court drafting legislation.

What are your thoughts.

What are your thoughts on "the tyranny of the majority"?

There is a reason why there is a Constitution. To protect the rights of the minority that would otherwise be trampled upon.

There is also a reason for checks and balances. Legislative drafts and passes laws. Executive enforces them. Courts interpret them.

What are your thoughts on Courts becoming legislators?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Bolas 5]

After the noninsured fine was considered a tax, it became very clear any legal challenges would fail, no matter what it took.

Scary new precedent: write some huge bill no one can/will read first before voting, selectively enforce only parts or none and if something doesn't work or not to one's advantage, "what we meant was" is enough to get it changed without any pesky voting.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bolas

After the noninsured fine was considered a tax, it became very clear any legal challenges would fail, no matter what it took.

Scary new precedent: write some huge bill no one can/will read first before voting, selectively enforce only parts or none and if something doesn't work or not to one's advantage, "what we meant was" is enough to get it changed without any pesky voting.

I'm still waiting to hear from ANY proponent of Obama care, just how many of the uninsured populace, the 30 something million that were uninsured before Obama care, are now insured under Obama care, and how many lives were adversely affected.

I would love them to put those numbers up, side by side.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bolas 5]

lawrocket

What are your thoughts on Courts becoming legislators?

With retroactive power.

Silver lining though, this could sure close a lot of loopholes.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

******I'm not talking about Scalia or corporations. In talking about a court drafting legislation.

What are your thoughts.

What are your thoughts on "the tyranny of the majority"?

There is a reason why there is a Constitution. To protect the rights of the minority that would otherwise be trampled upon.

There is also a reason for checks and balances. Legislative drafts and passes laws. Executive enforces them. Courts interpret them.

What are your thoughts on Courts becoming legislators?

They have handed our country to the oligarchs.... I fear the only redress for that will be guillotines.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi rocket,

Quote

What are your thoughts on Courts becoming legislators?

They have ruled ( as they have for over 200 yrs ). Ergo, set the red herrings aside.

As an attorney, what are your thoughts on the SCOTUS being the final say in this country?

Jerry Baumchen

PS) In the course of my lifetime, I have lived with SCOTUS rulings that I did not care for. I have survived quite nicely.

[lawrocket 3]

The SCOTUS isn't the final say. The income tax was found Unconstitutional by the SCOTUS over a century ago.

Then the Constitution was amended, which specifically authorized an income tax.

When a statute is found to be ambiguous, Congress may amend the statute to supersede the Court's opinion.

These are the checks and balances that still stay in play.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi rocket,

Quote

Congress may amend the statute

Why would I ever expect an attorney to stay on subject?

Congress can amend until the cows come home, the SCOTUS gets the last word; and you know it.

Edit to add: Amending the Constitution and Congress amending a law are two very different things. Nice try on the word substitution.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) 67% of the US population are for single-sex marriage. No way in Hades is the contstitution going to be amended on this subject.

[kallend 1,622]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rocket,

Quote

Congress may amend the statute

Why would I ever expect an attorney to stay on subject?

Congress can amend until the cows come home, the SCOTUS gets the last word; and you know it.

Edit to add: Amending the Constitution and Congress amending a law are two very different things. Nice try on the word substitution.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) 67% of the US population are for single-sex marriage. No way in Hades is the contstitution going to be amended on this subject.

Funny, don't you think, that amending the constitution and removing a treasonous supremacist banner from the S. Carolina statehouse grounds both require a supermajority.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.