SCOTUS EMBARASSES ITSELF..........THE SCALIA OPINION

[Whirlaway]

SCOTUS deserves mockery and derision.

Key excerpts:

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!).

Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!).

I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.

One begins to get the sense that the Court’s insistence on reading things in context applies to “established by the State,” but to nothing else.

On the other side of the ledger, the Court has come up with nothing more than a general provision that turns out to be controlled by a specific one, a handful of clauses that are consistent with either understanding of establishment by the State, and a resemblance between the tax-credit provision and the rest of the Tax Code. If that is all it takes to make something ambiguous, everything is ambiguous.

Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.” Ante, at 14. This Court, however, has no free-floating power “to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004).

Only when it is patently obvious to a reasonable reader that a drafting mistake has occurred may a court correct the mistake. The occurrence of a misprint may be apparent from the face of the law, as it is where the Affordable Care Act “creates three separate Section 1563s.” Ante, at 14. But the Court does not pretend that there is any such indication of a drafting error on the face of §36B.

The occurrence of a misprint may also be apparent because a provision decrees an absurd result—a consequence “so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.” Sturges, 4 Wheat., at 203. But §36B does not come remotely close to satisfying that demanding standard. It is entirely plausible that tax credits were restricted to state Exchanges deliberately—for example, in order to encourage States to establish their own Exchanges. We therefore have no authority to dismiss the terms of the law as a drafting fumble.

Let us not forget that the term “Exchange established by the State” appears twice in §36B and five more times in other parts of the Act that mention tax credits. What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?

If there was a mistake here, context suggests it was a substantive mistake in designing this part of the law, not a technical mistake in transcribing it.

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.

This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).

Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” [Citation omitted] It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate.

Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.

[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925).

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”

Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.

[T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.

And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

[WombRaider]

the federal government is considered the 'State'.

[WTF]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Whirlaway]

Except when it is not.............

Originally Posted by WombRaider

the federal government is considered the 'State'.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

the federal government is considered the 'State'.

In the Soviet Union.

Here in the United States of America, we have the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

the federal government is considered the 'State'.

No, it isn't idiot. In the ACA, the word "state" refers to one of the 50 states.

Legislation never refers to the federal government as "the state".

It refers to Congress, the President, the Senate, the House, the Supreme court, etc. Legislation is specific, not vague, about governmental actors.

Here's the U.S. Code:

http://uscode.house.gov/

Go find an instance of legislation referring to "the state' when referring to the powers and duties of various branches of the federal government.

P.S. "State Department" doesn't count. That is our representation to the outside world, not a domestic aspect of the federal government

[timpage]

I encourage all of you with the brain wattage to do so to read the opinion (and the dissent) here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-114_qol1.pdf

I'm on the record as saying I think that legally there are problems with the legislation. Justice Roberts shoots me all full of holes......damn fine opinion. Incredibly well-crafted. One of those SCOTUS opinions that nails down legislation with a broader purpose. The ACA is here to stay. Man, I know this is a tough nut to swallow for a lot of you on the board. I just think this is one of those things that the path forward is so clear that the law has to follow it. Americans deserve decent health care whether they can afford it or not. That's what this was all about. I still can't understand those of you who oppose it. Getting decent healthcare shouldn't depend on income level.

How the fuck can any of you argue against that? I just don't get it.

[Yssup Rider]

More beans, Mr. Taggart?

[timpage]

Why would you say that? The SCOTUS has issued an opinion and your response is that the country needs to respond with "mockery and derision"? I don't get that. You post up here wearing your patriot tags but when the Constitution acts like it should, you post up this crap? The opposition ought to respectfully disagree.

And Scalia's dissent is brilliant so far as it goes. I'll never say anything else. He just doesn't get it.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

SCOTUS deserves mockery and derision.

Key excerpts:

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!).

Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!).

I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.

One begins to get the sense that the Court’s insistence on reading things in context applies to “established by the State,” but to nothing else.

On the other side of the ledger, the Court has come up with nothing more than a general provision that turns out to be controlled by a specific one, a handful of clauses that are consistent with either understanding of establishment by the State, and a resemblance between the tax-credit provision and the rest of the Tax Code. If that is all it takes to make something ambiguous, everything is ambiguous.

Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.” Ante, at 14. This Court, however, has no free-floating power “to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004).

Only when it is patently obvious to a reasonable reader that a drafting mistake has occurred may a court correct the mistake. The occurrence of a misprint may be apparent from the face of the law, as it is where the Affordable Care Act “creates three separate Section 1563s.” Ante, at 14. But the Court does not pretend that there is any such indication of a drafting error on the face of §36B.

The occurrence of a misprint may also be apparent because a provision decrees an absurd result—a consequence “so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.” Sturges, 4 Wheat., at 203. But §36B does not come remotely close to satisfying that demanding standard. It is entirely plausible that tax credits were restricted to state Exchanges deliberately—for example, in order to encourage States to establish their own Exchanges. We therefore have no authority to dismiss the terms of the law as a drafting fumble.

Let us not forget that the term “Exchange established by the State” appears twice in §36B and five more times in other parts of the Act that mention tax credits. What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?

If there was a mistake here, context suggests it was a substantive mistake in designing this part of the law, not a technical mistake in transcribing it.

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.

This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).

Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” [Citation omitted] It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate.

Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.

[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925).

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”

Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.

[T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.

And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

[Yssup Rider]

Scalia is a toad.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, it isn't idiot. In the ACA, the word "state" refers to one of the 50 states.

Legislation never refers to the federal government as "the state".

It refers to Congress, the President, the Senate, the House, the Supreme court, etc. Legislation is specific, not vague, about governmental actors.

Here's the U.S. Code:

http://uscode.house.gov/

Go find an instance of legislation referring to "the state' when referring to the powers and duties of various branches of the federal government.

P.S. "State Department" doesn't count. That is our representation to the outside world, not a domestic aspect of the federal government

Apparently, you're wrong. Justice Roberts says so.

[CuteOldGuy]

Scalia gets it. He is spot on accurate where this decision is faulty, and he foresees the ramifications. I hope he lives a long time.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Apparently, you're wrong. Justice Roberts says so.

It won't take long to find a SCOTUS decision that says you are wrong.

10th Amendment.

Or are you and Roberts going to argue that when the "STATES" voted on the 10th Amendment they really meant "federal government" when it says "STATES"?

This is one of those ... "it depends upon what "is" means" moments in history.

[Whirlaway]

Of course the Robert's decision should be mocked and derided (and feared); just as Lewis Carroll was mocking with Humpty Dumpty............the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Meaning.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

The masters now are those who want words (and laws) to mean whatever they want them to mean, not what is written.

Goodbye law, goodbye America.

Originally Posted by timpage

Why would you say that? The SCOTUS has issued an opinion and your response is that the country needs to respond with "mockery and derision"? I don't get that. You post up here wearing your patriot tags but when the Constitution acts like it should, you post up this crap? The opposition ought to respectfully disagree.

And Scalia's dissent is brilliant so far as it goes. I'll never say anything else. He just doesn't get it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Of course the Robert's decision should be mocked and derided (and feared); just as Lewis Carroll was mocking with Humpty Dumpty............the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

The masters now are those who want words (and laws) to mean whatever they want them to mean, not what is written.

Goodbye law, goodbye America.

In the mean time the GOP needs to kiss his ass as they would be scrambling to find a fix...