Supreme Court's new function in govt: Writing new laws from the bench

[TemplarKormac]

-From Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell

 

[paddymurphy]

BUT "CONGRESS" DID NOT PASS THE "AFFORDABLE CARE ACT"

THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE DID, ON A SNOWY CHRISTMAS EVE, IN FUCKING SECRET , AT 2 AM -


.


.

LOL, Was it legal and under the rules of the Congress? How was it done in "fucking secret"?

BUT "CONGRESS" DID NOT PASS THE "AFFORDABLE CARE ACT"

THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE DID, ON A SNOWY CHRISTMAS EVE, IN FUCKING SECRET , AT 2 AM -


.


.

LOL, Was it legal and under the rules of the Congress? How was it done in "fucking secret"?

“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,”

said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.[/QUOTE

So, you were not aware that a law has to pass both houses of congress? Should have learned that in fifth grade. Have you not made it that far yet?

LISTEN YOU STUPID SON OF BITCH, A LAW IS SUPPOSED TO PASS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS


EXCEPT OBAMA CARE


PROVIDE A LINK TO THE HOUSE VERSION WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY VOTED ON BY THE SENATE.

I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH.


.

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) onSeptember 17, 2009
• Committee consideration by Ways and Means
• Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
• Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" onDecember 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
• House agreed to Senate amendment onMarch 21, 2010 (219–212)
• Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

]
Right. Like it's essential parts had not been debated for months and considered for years.

AGAIN, DINGLE BERRY, IT IS NOT WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MONTHS AND CONSIDERED FOR YEARS ...IT IS WHEN THE PARTICULAR CHAMBER VOTES AND APPROVES THE BILL.


I AGAIN ASK YOU WHEN DID THE HOUSE VOTE FOR THE "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

You are absolutely right. It was passed illegally. It should not be a law. But, guess what, douchebag? You cannot do dick about it. It is the law and will stay the law. Maybe if the republicans were not all dumb fucks like you, they might have stopped it. But, alas, they are dumb fucks like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Court upheld the intent of the law, applying the principle of 'legislative intent'.

Legislative intent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To do otherwise would have been your beloved 'legislating from the bench'.

 

[bendog]

LOL, Was it legal and under the rules of the Congress? How was it done in "fucking secret"?

LOL, Was it legal and under the rules of the Congress? How was it done in "fucking secret"?

“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,”

said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.[/QUOTE

LISTEN YOU STUPID SON OF BITCH, A LAW IS SUPPOSED TO PASS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS


EXCEPT OBAMA CARE


PROVIDE A LINK TO THE HOUSE VERSION WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY VOTED ON BY THE SENATE.

I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH.


.

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) onSeptember 17, 2009
• Committee consideration by Ways and Means
• Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
• Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" onDecember 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
• House agreed to Senate amendment onMarch 21, 2010 (219–212)
• Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

]
Right. Like it's essential parts had not been debated for months and considered for years.

AGAIN, DINGLE BERRY, IT IS NOT WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MONTHS AND CONSIDERED FOR YEARS ...IT IS WHEN THE PARTICULAR CHAMBER VOTES AND APPROVES THE BILL.


I AGAIN ASK YOU WHEN DID THE HOUSE VOTE FOR THE "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

You are absolutely right. It was passed illegally. It should not be a law. But, guess what, douchebag? You cannot do dick about it. It is the law and will stay the law. Maybe if the republicans were not all dumb fucks like you, they might have stopped it. But, alas, they are dumb fucks like you.

How so was it illegally passed? Are you back to the spending bills must arise in the House or failure to go to reconciliation?

 

[Little-Acorn]

-From Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell

Exactly. Changing the law is congress's job, not the Court's.

What the court should have done, is rule: "The law clearly says that only the states that set up their own exchanges, will get Federal subsidies. And the people who wrote the law are on record as saying that was exactly what they intended, so claiming they 'made a mistake' doesn't fly.

"We must strike down the giving of subsidies to states without exchanges, and send this law back to Congress. If Congress sees fit to modify this law or write a new one that says that subsidies will be given to states whether they set up their own exchanges or not, then that will solve the problem, and the giving of subsidies to states without exchanges can resume. But making such a change to the law is Congress's job, not ours. Any such change must follow the Constitutionally-required procedure of being passed by the House and the Senate, and signed by the President. Once that is done, then the non-exchange subsidies can be resumed."

Of course, Congress is made up of people elected by the American people. And once the American people found out what a monstrosity Congress had imposed on them, they kicked out nearly all of the Congressmen who had voted for it, and replaced them with people who opposed that law. The American people have spoken, and have shown in no uncertain terms what they want done with this law. They set up the Congress that must deal with any such changes, and if the Congress they set up refuses to authorize subsidies from non-exchange states, so be it. The will of the American people shall be done, by the people they elected to make their laws.

Unless the unelected Justices manage to prevent it, in defiance of well-established Court procedures.

The leftists know that normal Americans don't want their schemes. So they are desperate to prevent the people's representatives from having any say on them. Leftists Kennedy and Roberts (plus the usual four USSC liberals) managed to prevent it for them. Twice, now.

It's all the leftists have.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

What the court did was declare the law irrelevant in the face of political goals.

This is a scofflaw court who openly violates the Constitution.

No doubt you will say that the court IS the Constitution, which is also the view of Roberts - that there is no law save the utterance of our unelected rulers.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, this time I take no pleasure in being right.
Supremes find government confiscation of raisin crops unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Uh-oh Supreme Court will hear case re Obamacare subsides illegal in states without state exchanges US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Supremes find government confiscation of raisin crops unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Roberts court has now established itself as a second legislative branch in the Federal government. And this one is unelected.

The Supremes' original role, of course, was to act as a judicial court: Deciding how the law as written, applied to real-world cases; and protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution.

But in two consecutive cases now, they have shifted their role to some new ones.

When asked a few years ago to decide whether the Mandate in the ACA law was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an astonishing decision that (a) the mandate was clearly unconstitutional since it penalized people for NOT buying something, (b) if the law had taxed them instead of penalizing them then it would be "barely acceptable" since Congress does have the power to tax, and (c) Roberts would now rewrite the law, removing the word "penalty" wherever it occurred (it was in the law in 17 places) and replacing it with "tax". He then declared the newly-written law constitutional and binding, despite its never having been passed in that form by Congress nor signed by the President.

In doing so, he ignored the fact that the Congress that passed the original ACA, never would have passed it in its new form. A number of Democrat congressmen had gone on the record declaring they would not vote for it if it contained any new taxes. And the leftist fanatics who wrote it, spent weeks assuring them that it did not contain any new taxes at all, only penalties, and that's why those congressmen should vote for it. So it passed by a one-vote margin.

The ink was barely dry before those same leftist fanatics were sending briefs to the Supreme Court, insisting that the law contained no penalties at all, only taxes. (In his novel "1984", George Orwell sardonically referred to this kind of complete reversal, as "doublethink".)

Chief Justice Roberts then announced a new purpose for the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law as written and upholding the Constitution, he now stated that the Court's new function, was to do whatever Congress wanted. If the law was constitutional as written, fine. If it wasn't, the Court would rewrite it, making whatever changes were needed so they could declare it "constitutional". And they would NOT ask Congress to vote on it in its new form, despite the Constitutional requirement that they do so.

And now they have done the same thing again, ironically to the same law (only a different part of it).

The law as written, says that states would get Federal subsidies if they set up their own exchanges. Roberts seems to have decided that they really meant that ALL states would get Federal subsidies. Despite the architects of the law publicly announcing that that was not its intent at all. They wrote it that way to force states to set up their own exchanges, by deliberately withholding funds from those that didn't.

So Roberts decided to change the law again, and proclaim that it now said that all states would get subsidies, despite its clear wording to the contrary. And, of course, the Congress would not be asked to vote on the law in its new form, despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.

There seems to be no point in our having a Congress any more. Or a Constitution, that lists requirements for making laws. Both are being freely ignored nowadays, by a Court that has decided it knows what they "really wanted" (never mind that the Congressmen themselves have declared otherwise), and that has decided it has the power to rewrite laws without sending them back to Congress for re-approval.

Obama isn't the only one with a pen and a phone. With a Court like this behind him legislating from the bench, he needs nothing more. And he especially doesn't need some pesky elected Congress that won't fall in line and obey his dictates.

He and his minions (on and off the bench) merely need to announce that Congress didn't really mean the laws they passed. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.

Orwell was right. He was merely 30-odd years early.

Sandra Day O'Connor warn the current court about not following starry decisis. Alito and robert are bush loyalist. right wingers. we cannot have a conservative president in 2016 or 2020 because we cannot replace retiring judges with more conservatives.since Aledo and robert have join the court the Supreme Court has sided with corporations everytime. this country is corporate owned and controlled including the Supreme Court

 

[Wry Catcher]

CJ Roberts is every Progressive Wet Dream Activist Justice. He's the Modern Warren

But he voted to repeal election funding reform - that gave you a wet dream Frankie. And you still have Alito, Thomas and Scalia working hard to take America back to the 18th Century.

I'll explain this to you one time, Honey Boo Boo. CJ Roberts sides with the Statists on the things that truly matter to Statists: taking control of the lives of Citizens (subjects) through "health care" laws

Thanks once again for sharing your misguided and biased opinions. For you to publish anything of substance would require a panoptic perspective framed with a sagacious intelligence; items which have never been part of your tool box.

But I digress. Did Roberts really put forth those medically intrusive laws, waiting periods and inquisitions women need to experience before having a legal abortion?

I pity the electrons you destroy in making your posts. They might have otherwise done something useful

You would, normal people save their pity for those stricken with disease and denied health insurance because of an existing medical condition. Normal people support the PPACA

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

Brilliant words by the Chief Justice.

BUT "CONGRESS" DID NOT PASS THE "AFFORDABLE CARE ACT"

THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED SENATE DID, ON A SNOWY CHRISTMAS EVE, IN FUCKING SECRET , AT 2 AM -


.


.

So, you were not aware that a law has to pass both houses of congress? Should have learned that in fifth grade. Have you not made it that far yet?

LISTEN YOU STUPID SON OF BITCH, A LAW IS SUPPOSED TO PASS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS


EXCEPT OBAMA CARE


PROVIDE A LINK TO THE HOUSE VERSION WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY VOTED ON BY THE SENATE.

I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH.


.

If you had promised to hold your breath I would have waited until next Week:

H.R.3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

 

[Uncensored2008]

Correction: They lied about the legislative intent of the law.

I disagree.

Roberts was clear that the law is not Constitutional, but that he views the goals of the law more important than Constitutionality. Roberts declared that law, both in the case of the ACA, and as a principle for government, is irrelevant.

“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.”

He bluntly says that he and the other traitors depart from the statutory elements - the actual written law, in favor of political goals. If no departure from the pertinent statutory phrase is made, then Roberts must throw the ACA out, but because he supports the ACA, the rule of law is instead jettisoned. Roberts and the court serve the political agenda of the Administration and contemptuously negate the rule of law and the United States Constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,”

said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.[/QUOTE

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) onSeptember 17, 2009
• Committee consideration by Ways and Means
• Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
• Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" onDecember 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
• House agreed to Senate amendment onMarch 21, 2010 (219–212)
• Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

]
Right. Like it's essential parts had not been debated for months and considered for years.

AGAIN, DINGLE BERRY, IT IS NOT WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MONTHS AND CONSIDERED FOR YEARS ...IT IS WHEN THE PARTICULAR CHAMBER VOTES AND APPROVES THE BILL.


I AGAIN ASK YOU WHEN DID THE HOUSE VOTE FOR THE "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

You are absolutely right. It was passed illegally. It should not be a law. But, guess what, douchebag? You cannot do dick about it. It is the law and will stay the law. Maybe if the republicans were not all dumb fucks like you, they might have stopped it. But, alas, they are dumb fucks like you.

How so was it illegally passed? Are you back to the spending bills must arise in the House or failure to go to reconciliation?

I was being sarcastic, responding to the asshole who types in caps.

 

[Contumacious]

LOL, Was it legal and under the rules of the Congress? How was it done in "fucking secret"?

LOL, Was it legal and under the rules of the Congress? How was it done in "fucking secret"?

“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,”

said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.[/QUOTE

LISTEN YOU STUPID SON OF BITCH, A LAW IS SUPPOSED TO PASS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS


EXCEPT OBAMA CARE


PROVIDE A LINK TO THE HOUSE VERSION WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY VOTED ON BY THE SENATE.

I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH.


.

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) onSeptember 17, 2009
• Committee consideration by Ways and Means
• Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
• Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" onDecember 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
• House agreed to Senate amendment onMarch 21, 2010 (219–212)
• Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

]
Right. Like it's essential parts had not been debated for months and considered for years.

AGAIN, DINGLE BERRY, IT IS NOT WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MONTHS AND CONSIDERED FOR YEARS ...IT IS WHEN THE PARTICULAR CHAMBER VOTES AND APPROVES THE BILL.


I AGAIN ASK YOU WHEN DID THE HOUSE VOTE FOR THE "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

You are absolutely right. It was passed illegally. It should not be a law. But, guess what, douchebag? You cannot do dick about it. It is the law and will stay the law. Maybe if the republicans were not all dumb fucks like you, they might have stopped it. But, alas, they are dumb fucks like you.

Are you Canadian, Mexican?


If you are an American how can you celebrate being victimized my a scam?

Oh wait , you are not a victim.....you are a fucking parasite willing to steal loot and plunder by any means necessary.


.

 

[Contumacious]

“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,”

said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.[/QUOTE

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) onSeptember 17, 2009
• Committee consideration by Ways and Means
• Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
• Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" onDecember 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
• House agreed to Senate amendment onMarch 21, 2010 (219–212)
• Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

]
Right. Like it's essential parts had not been debated for months and considered for years.

AGAIN, DINGLE BERRY, IT IS NOT WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MONTHS AND CONSIDERED FOR YEARS ...IT IS WHEN THE PARTICULAR CHAMBER VOTES AND APPROVES THE BILL.


I AGAIN ASK YOU WHEN DID THE HOUSE VOTE FOR THE "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

You are absolutely right. It was passed illegally. It should not be a law. But, guess what, douchebag? You cannot do dick about it. It is the law and will stay the law. Maybe if the republicans were not all dumb fucks like you, they might have stopped it. But, alas, they are dumb fucks like you.

How so was it illegally passed? Are you back to the spending bills must arise in the House or failure to go to reconciliation?

He was joshing.

Under the new and improved welfare/warfare state Constitution of 1935 if a law aggrandizes and empowers the federal government then it is not UNconstitutional.


Hallelujah.


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Roberts court has now established itself as a second legislative branch in the Federal government. And this one is unelected.

The Supremes' original role, of course, was to act as a judicial court: Deciding how the law as written, applied to real-world cases; and protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution.

But in two consecutive cases now, they have shifted their role to some new ones.

When asked a few years ago to decide whether the Mandate in the ACA law was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an astonishing decision that:

(a) the mandate was clearly unconstitutional since it penalized people for NOT buying something,
(b) if the law had taxed them instead of penalizing them then it would be "barely acceptable" since Congress does have the power to tax, and
(c) Roberts would now rewrite the law, removing the word "penalty" wherever it occurred (it was in the law in 17 places) and replacing it with "tax". He then declared the newly-written law constitutional and binding, despite its never having been passed in that form by Congress nor signed by the President.

In doing so, he ignored the fact that the Congress that passed the original ACA, never would have passed it in its new form. A number of Democrat congressmen had gone on the record declaring they would not vote for it if it contained any new taxes. And the leftist fanatics who wrote it, spent weeks assuring them that it did not contain any new taxes at all, only penalties, and that's why those congressmen should vote for it. So it passed by a one-vote margin.

The ink was barely dry before those same leftist fanatics were sending briefs to the Supreme Court, insisting that the law contained no penalties at all, only taxes. (In his novel "1984", George Orwell sardonically referred to this kind of complete reversal, as "doublethink".)

Chief Justice Roberts then announced a new purpose for the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law as written and upholding the Constitution, he now stated that the Court's new function, was to do whatever Congress wanted. If the law was constitutional as written, fine. If it wasn't, the Court would rewrite it, making whatever changes were needed so they could declare it "constitutional". And they would NOT ask Congress to vote on it in its new form, despite the Constitutional requirement that they do so.

And now they have done the same thing again, ironically to the same law (only a different part of it).

The law as written, says that states would get Federal subsidies if they set up their own exchanges. Roberts seems to have decided that they really meant that ALL states would get Federal subsidies. Despite the architects of the law publicly announcing that that was not its intent at all. They wrote it that way to force states to set up their own exchanges, by deliberately withholding funds from those that didn't.

So Roberts decided to change the law again, and proclaim that it now said that all states would get subsidies, despite its clear wording to the contrary. And, of course, the Congress would not be asked to vote on the law in its new form, despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.

There seems to be no point in our having a Congress any more. Or a Constitution, that lists requirements for making laws. Both are being freely ignored nowadays, by a Court that has decided it knows what they "really wanted" (never mind that the Congressmen themselves have declared otherwise), and that has decided it has the power to rewrite laws without sending them back to Congress for re-approval.

Obama isn't the only one with a pen and a phone. With a Court like this behind him legislating from the bench, he needs nothing more. And he especially doesn't need some pesky elected Congress that won't fall in line and obey his dictates.

He and his minions (on and off the bench) merely need to announce that Congress didn't really mean the laws they passed. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.

Orwell was right. He was merely 30-odd years early.

 

[paddymurphy]

-From Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell

Exactly. Changing the law is congress's job, not the Court's.

What the court should have done, is rule: "The law clearly says that only the states that set up their own exchanges, will get Federal subsidies. And the people who wrote the law are on record as saying that was exactly what they intended, so claiming they 'made a mistake' doesn't fly.

"We must strike down the giving of subsidies to states without exchanges, and send this law back to Congress. If Congress sees fit to modify this law or write a new one that says that subsidies will be given to states whether they set up their own exchanges or not, then that will solve the problem, and the giving of subsidies to states without exchanges can resume. But making such a change to the law is Congress's job, not ours. Any such change must follow the Constitutionally-required procedure of being passed by the House and the Senate, and signed by the President. Once that is done, then the non-exchange subsidies can be resumed."

Of course, Congress is made up of people elected by the American people. And once the American people found out what a monstrosity Congress had imposed on them, they kicked out nearly all of the Congressmen who had voted for it, and replaced them with people who opposed that law. The American people have spoken, and have shown in no uncertain terms what they want done with this law. They set up the Congress that must deal with any such changes, and if the Congress they set up refuses to authorize subsidies from non-exchange states, so be it. The will of the American people shall be done, by the people they elected to make their laws.

Unless the unelected Justices manage to prevent it, in defiance of well-established Court procedures.

The leftists know that normal Americans don't want their schemes. So they are desperate to prevent the people's representatives from having any say on them. Leftists Kennedy and Roberts (plus the usual four USSC liberals) managed to prevent it for them. Twice, now.

It's all the leftists have.

Right. And when the people had a chance to replace the man who got the aca passed in 2012 they turned him out of office. The 2012 election was a referendum on the aca and the author of the aca won handily.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court didn't write any new law. They let the ACA law stand as is.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Supreme Court didn't write any new law.

No, they simply declared that words have malleable definitions, subject to the whim of one's personal political POV.

What surprise! The Democrats have been doing that for generations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court didn't write any new law.

No, they simply declared that words have malleable definitions, subject to the whim of one's personal political POV.

What surprise! The Democrats have been doing that for generations.

Determining legislative intent is a judicial prerogative. The SCOTUS let the law stand as it was written AND as it was being interpreted and implemented.

They did not write any new law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court didn't write any new law.

No, they simply declared that words have malleable definitions, subject to the whim of one's personal political POV.

What surprise! The Democrats have been doing that for generations.

It was either of two GOP appointed justices that swung the decision in favor of the ACA.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Determining legislative intent is a judicial prerogative.

Redefining the meaning of words is the is the prerogative of The Ministry of Truth.

They did not write any new law.

No, they simply rubber-stamped a flawed one. Try that with a contract.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It was either of two GOP appointed justices that swung the decision in favor of the ACA.

Example: David Souter was appointed by GHW Bush.

Your point?