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

[paddymurphy]

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).

No, they are not more co-equal. Any one of the three branches can determine that a law is not constitutional. The Congress can vote to defeat an unconstitutional law; the President can veto one and the Supreme Court can determine it is unconstitutional upon review. So, they are each equal; they each have the ability to prevent the implementation of an unconstitutional law. That leaves the ultimate authority with the people. If they do not like a determination by the SCOTUS that a law is unconstitutional, they can amend the constitution. The thought that they would do so on this issue is moronic.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

 

[Skylar]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

But as a progressive you don't care about procedure, or protocol, or anything else that makes the world more orderly, you just want what you want, and only hide behind protocol and procedure when it suits your viewpoint.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

 

[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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

That is not even close to what happened here. There was not "we really meant". The intent was always to make subsidies available to all who obtained coverage on the exchange. That was what those who wrote the law (no, not Gruber, the senators and congress members) stated was the intent. You can not find a single statement by a Senator or Congressman in which they claim that the intent was to exclude those securing coverage on a state exchange run by the feds from subsidies.

 

[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).

No, they are not more co-equal. Any one of the three branches can determine that a law is not constitutional. The Congress can vote to defeat an unconstitutional law; the President can veto one and the Supreme Court can determine it is unconstitutional upon review. So, they are each equal; they each have the ability to prevent the implementation of an unconstitutional law. That leaves the ultimate authority with the people. If they do not like a determination by the SCOTUS that a law is unconstitutional, they can amend the constitution. The thought that they would do so on this issue is moronic.

No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government. However, if the Supreme Court strikes down a federal law, Congress can always modify the law until it is such that the Supreme Court does not consider it to violate the Constitution, then pass it again.

Supreme Court decisions can only be overturned in two ways:

Legitimate Methods

1. The US Supreme Court reverses a decision on an earlier case by making a contradictory decision on a current case.
2. Congress and the States can overturn a decision by amending the Constitution.

Illegitimate Methods (Passive Resistance)

1. Sometimes the Executive Branch obstructs or fails to enforce a decision.
2. Sometimes Congress rewrites legislation to bring it into compliance with constitutional guidelines.
3. Sometimes Congress strips the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction over certain types of cases to deprive them of the ability to overturn a law or policy.
4. Sometimes states pass laws that clearly violate Supreme Court decisions, forcing someone with standing to challenge the new law's constitutionality. Meanwhile, the law can be enforced even if violates established civil rights. State legislatures do this with the hope of overturning, or slipping around, precedents set by earlier Courts.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.

It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.

 

[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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

That is not even close to what happened here. There was not "we really meant". The intent was always to make subsidies available to all who obtained coverage on the exchange. That was what those who wrote the law (no, not Gruber, the senators and congress members) stated was the intent. You can not find a single statement by a Senator or Congressman in which they claim that the intent was to exclude those securing coverage on a state exchange run by the feds from subsidies.

You can find plenty that state that it wasn't their intent. Which is exactly what the court found.

 

[Skylar]

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.

And that was the intent of the challenge. Not to force the law to function as it was intended. But to force the law not to function.

The justices went with the former rather than the latter.

 

[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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

That is not even close to what happened here. There was not "we really meant". The intent was always to make subsidies available to all who obtained coverage on the exchange. That was what those who wrote the law (no, not Gruber, the senators and congress members) stated was the intent. You can not find a single statement by a Senator or Congressman in which they claim that the intent was to exclude those securing coverage on a state exchange run by the feds from subsidies.

You can find plenty that state that it wasn't their intent. Which is exactly what the court found.

Even those who voted against it agree that the intent was not to deny subsidies. People seem to forget that it is the intent of the legislature that matters.

 

[martybegan]

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.

It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.

So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.

 

[martybegan]

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.

Really?

A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com

 

[Skylar]

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.

It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.

So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.

They followed the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they're supposed to do.

You insist that you know what the legislative intent is better than the legislators that created the bill.

As a 2 to 1 ruling affirming the legislators intent demonstrates, you don't.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So, if a state decides to tax everyone who makes over $200,000 a year at a 5% surcharge, then decides "we really meant $20,000 per year and a 50% surcharge, our bad," you would be A-OK with a court allowing it?

That is not even close to what happened here. There was not "we really meant". The intent was always to make subsidies available to all who obtained coverage on the exchange. That was what those who wrote the law (no, not Gruber, the senators and congress members) stated was the intent. You can not find a single statement by a Senator or Congressman in which they claim that the intent was to exclude those securing coverage on a state exchange run by the feds from subsidies.

Yep, ignore gruber because it doesn't fit your narrative, you hack.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

People seem to forget that it is the intent of the legislature that matters.

Sorry, but no. In legal matters the language must be clear.

 

[martybegan]

How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?

That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.

This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.

6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.

Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.

It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.

The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.

That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.

What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.

The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.

So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.

They followed the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they're supposed to do.

You insist that you know what the legislative intent is better than the legislators that created the bill.

As a 2 to 1 ruling affirming the legislators intent demonstrates, you don't.

No, they didn't. Stop trying to say they did. They lied, you lie, congress lies. and you all should go to hell.