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

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You tried to blame the decision on Democrats.

 

[Wildman]

...take America back to the 18th Century.

ahhh yaa, back when Americans had real freedom and liberty, even when i was a youngster, i had more freedom and liberty to do pretty much as i wanted to e.g., bought a rifle when i was 16 y.o., no paperwork other than the exchange of $25.00 and a receipt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, they simply confirmed the fact that the subsidies in the ACA were meant to be available to all eligible Americans.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You tried to blame the decision on Democrats.

How interesting. Please post the message number where that occurred.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No, they simply confirmed the fact that the subsidies in the ACA were meant to be available to all eligible Americans.

I realize this is a habit with you, but saying things, even repeating them over and over again as Goebbels suggested, does not make them true.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

They followed

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.

They followed the advice of one of the longest serving justices:
"Scalia writes that U.S. courts, sadly, "have no intelligible, generally accepted and consistently applied, theory of statutory interpretation." He describes as principle, dating back to 18th century England, judges interpreting a statute "to give effect to 'the intent of the legislature'." Judges, he adds, are supposed to resolve inconsistencies "in such a fashion as to make the statute, not only internally consistent, but also compatible with previously enacted laws." They gave effect to the intent of the legislature and resolved the inconsistencies in the law to make it internally consistent. The fact that the author of the opinion is a conservative who clearly would not have voted to pass such a law were he in Congress and was joined by another conservative justice is pretty compelling proof that the Court got it right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

Billy has no clue what the job of the Supreme Court is. None. The fact is that the only two justices who clearly ruled against their own political viewpoint were Roberts and Kennedy. That, alone, gives the Opinion of the Chief tremendous credibility. The claim that "liberal" judges are writing the law is just absurd.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

The Constitution in no way forbids the Supreme Court from using the principle of legislative intent to determine whether to uphold or strike down a law.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

The Constitution in no way forbids the Supreme Court from using the principle of legislative intent to determine whether to uphold or strike down a law.

I'm afraid its a bit complex for you, but the SCOTUS has no authority to determine the intent of legislation. Without explicit authority, no such power can be exercised.

Clearly, words have no meaning to this SCOTUS as they will make it up as they go.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

You have no clue what you are talking about. This case had no constitutional issues. They did not decide if the "language of the law volatilized the restrictions set forth by the Constitution." Why do you comment on an opinion you clearly did not read? Their jobs was to decide if the IRS regulation that provided tax subsidies to all who obtain coverage on an exchange was consistent with the statute. There are specific rules of construction they use to determine two things: One, what was the intent of the legislature (not the intent of some economic consultant name Gruber who did not write a single word of the statute) and, two, to determine if the regulation issued by the IRS was based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute. They did precisely what Courts are supposed to do; ascertain the intent of the legislature based on the ENTIRE statute and with a consideration of the overall purpose of the statute.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

The Constitution in no way forbids the Supreme Court from using the principle of legislative intent to determine whether to uphold or strike down a law.

I'm afraid its a bit complex for you, but the SCOTUS has no authority to determine the intent of legislation. Without explicit authority, no such power can be exercised.

Clearly, words have no meaning to this SCOTUS as they will make it up as they go.

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

The Constitution in no way forbids the Supreme Court from using the principle of legislative intent to determine whether to uphold or strike down a law.

I'm afraid its a bit complex for you, but the SCOTUS has no authority to determine the intent of legislation. Without explicit authority, no such power can be exercised.

Clearly, words have no meaning to this SCOTUS as they will make it up as they go.

"the SCOTUS has no authority to determine the intent of legislation" And I did not think your comments could get any more stupid. That is precisely what the Court is required to do. Courts do that all of the time. That is their fucking job. There is an entire body of law on "statutory construction".

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

The Constitution in no way forbids the Supreme Court from using the principle of legislative intent to determine whether to uphold or strike down a law.

I'm afraid its a bit complex for you, but the SCOTUS has no authority to determine the intent of legislation. Without explicit authority, no such power can be exercised.

Clearly, words have no meaning to this SCOTUS as they will make it up as they go.

You said it violates 'restrictions SET FORTH by the Constitution'.

Why don't you cite for us those SET RESTRICTIONS on the Supreme Court?

Chapter and verse please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

The Constitution in no way forbids the Supreme Court from using the principle of legislative intent to determine whether to uphold or strike down a law.

I'm afraid its a bit complex for you, but the SCOTUS has no authority to determine the intent of legislation. Without explicit authority, no such power can be exercised.

.

Then it should be easy for you to point to the legal authority in the Constitution to deny the SCOTUS such power, and tell us when we can expect that authority to nullify the decision on ACA.

 

[Wildman]

The Court decided what the law meant.

NO ! 6 supreams [SIC] decided to the muslime mulattos soiled skivvies.
those 6 are playing politics, not the rule of Constitutional Law !!

........ and Mr.Newyucktard.

 

[Wildman]

this should be voted into LAW !
House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare TheHill

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,”

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy has no clue what the job of the Supreme Court is.

I sure do! Their job is to be the more than co-equal branch of the three co-equal branches of government, as defined by Marbury v. Madison (1803).

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Not their job.

Words have meanings. When they don't, laws have no validity.

The Court decided what the law meant.

No, they don't. Well, this one does....

The courts decide if the enforcement of the law, as per the language of the law, violates the restrictions set forth by the Constitution.

Clearly, words have no meaning for this court.

They also determine disputes over the application of Federal Law. Most of their cases do not involve Constitutional issues at all. The majority did not address constitutionality of the law; only whether the regulation enacted by the IRS was consistent with the intent and purpose of the law and they determined, correctly, that the IRS regulation was.