SCOTUS - The self appointed 3rd House of Congress you didn't vote for

[Sickpuppy]

I encourage you to read all of the court’s opinion on SCOTUSCARE. The court’s majority opinion is stated below. How can anyone say they are not the new 3rd House of Congress – interpreting congress’ intent, rather than analyzing the letter of the law? Their own written opinion acknowledges they did not act as a separate, non-partisan branch of government. Instead, they assumed the role of elected officials and voted based on what they thought was best for those that would otherwise lose a subsidy. That's not their job.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-114_qol1.pdf (Scalia’s dissent begins on page 27.)

Opinion of the Court

Reliance on context and structure in statutory interpre­tation is a “subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.” Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 83 (1939). For the reasons we have given, however, such reliance is appropriate in this case, and leads us to conclude that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.
* * * 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. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is Affirmed.

[WombRaider]

It the opinion was in your favor, you would have no problem with their wording. You're just being disingenuous.

[JD Barleycorn]

Not necessarily Nazi Baby Killer. The Supreme Court is not supposed to write law (correcting the wording is rewriting the law) it is supposed to make a simple judgement. Is the law, as written, constitutional or not. We live in dangerous times because what we thought was true may not be anymore.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not necessarily Nazi Baby Killer. The Supreme Court is not supposed to write law (correcting the wording is rewriting the law) it is supposed to make a simple judgement. Is the law, as written, constitutional or not. We live in dangerous times because what we thought was true may not be anymore.

They didn't correct the wording. They interpreted it.

[Sickpuppy]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

They didn't correct the wording. They interpreted it.

Read Scalia's dissent dumbshit. The court ruled to correct the law, based on their interpretation of congress’ intent. We've all been misled to believe it was just one mistake in the law about "State Exchanges" -- it was actually seven references to the required state exchanges (to get a subsidy) throughout the law. So you’re admitting the dem congress made the same mistake seven times in writing the law? It wasn’t a mistake, it was apparently congress’ intent to punish any state (that state’s citizens) for not choosing to participate. Congress didn’t bank on the MAJORITY OF STATES CHOOSING TO NOT PARTICIPATE AND IT CAME BACK TO BITE THEM! (Per Scalia): “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? No provision of the Act—none at all—contradicts the limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. (Further): “Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress “meant [it] to operate.” Ante, at 17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress “meant” tax credits to be available every­where? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges.”

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Sickpuppy

Read Scalia's dissent dumbshit. The court ruled to correct the law, based on their interpretation of congress’ intent. We've all been misled to believe it was just one mistake in the law about "State Exchanges" -- it was actually seven references to the required state exchanges (to get a subsidy) throughout the law. So you’re admitting the dem congress made the same mistake seven times in writing the law? It wasn’t a mistake, it was apparently congress’ intent to punish any state (that state’s citizens) for not choosing to participate. Congress didn’t bank on the MAJORITY OF STATES CHOOSING TO NOT PARTICIPATE AND IT CAME BACK TO BITE THEM! (Per Scalia): “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 oc*curred in seven separate places? No provision of the Act—none at all—contradicts the limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. (Further): “Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress “meant [it] to operate.” Ante, at 17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress “meant” tax credits to be available every*where? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges.”

That is his interpretation. He was not in the majority. You simply agree with his interpretation over the other interpretation. He is judging their intent as well, you simply happen to agree with his judgement.

[shanm]

Right because making a decision affecting millions based on a typo is very rational. Makes sense.

[CuteOldGuy]

Depressing. This Court is leading us down a very dangerous path. The ramifications of this decision extend far beyond the ACA. SCOTUS has adopted the "Cheshire Cat" standard. " A word means whatever I want it to mean." The clear intent of the statute was to force states to establish exchanges. They did not do so. So SCOTUS says, no worries, Congress, we will ignore that so we can still get invites to all the good parties. Instead of Congress having to write clear and precise laws, they can now scribble out some jibberish and tell the Court "it means this" and the Court can now say, "Ok, cool. Fine with us." This is a disaster. This could be the end of our separation of powers. What a bunch of spineless, weak minded morons we have on the bench. Even Clarence Thomas now wants to get on the party circuit. This was not a good day for America. We are sinking faster into the abyss of tyranny. I doubt we can reverse this trend. I'll be gone in a few years, but my children and grandchildren are going to suffer. That pisses me off.

[Yssup Rider]

oh Waaaahhhhh, Waaahhhhh, Wahhhhhh!

[timpage]

Yes, let the weeping and gnashing of the teeth begin.

Guess what? Trying to determine what words mean involves interpreting those words. Scalia does exactly the same thing the majority does, his interpretation is simply different.

[Whirlaway]

It is 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 CuteOldGuy

Depressing. This Court is leading us down a very dangerous path. The ramifications of this decision extend far beyond the ACA. SCOTUS has adopted the "Cheshire Cat" standard. " A word means whatever I want it to mean." The clear intent of the statute was to force states to establish exchanges. They did not do so. So SCOTUS says, no worries, Congress, we will ignore that so we can still get invites to all the good parties. Instead of Congress having to write clear and precise laws, they can now scribble out some jibberish and tell the Court "it means this" and the Court can now say, "Ok, cool. Fine with us." This is a disaster. This could be the end of our separation of powers. What a bunch of spineless, weak minded morons we have on the bench. Even Clarence Thomas now wants to get on the party circuit. This was not a good day for America. We are sinking faster into the abyss of tyranny. I doubt we can reverse this trend. I'll be gone in a few years, but my children and grandchildren are going to suffer. That pisses me off.

[Whirlaway]

You didn't read; much less understand the Scalia opinion and why it is stinging to the majority opinion....

Scalia points out that the majority opinion twists itself into knots. Applying different definitions to same the word - "State" within the same law. The very essence of a corrupt interpretation of the meaning of words - there is no meaning (other than what I say), as Humpty Dumpty would say. The majority opinion twisted the law - In one part of the AHA "State" means the individual states and in another part "State" means the federal government.

Which is the definition of State? We still don't know. It is whatever a majority says it is depending on the sentence (paragraph, page number, section, subsection) it falls in.

Originally Posted by timpage

Yes, let the weeping and gnashing of the teeth begin.

Guess what? Trying to determine what words mean involves interpreting those words. Scalia does exactly the same thing the majority does, his interpretation is simply different.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

. I'll be gone in a few years, but my children and grandchildren are going to suffer. That pisses me off.

Don't die a bitter old man , have a drink with me and let it go....

[Jackie S]

It's almost like the majority said....."it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[JD Barleycorn]

Then words don't mean anything anymore, they are all open to interpretation. Look at Nazi Baby Killer, he claims his name is spelled W-o-m-b- r-a-i-d-e-r but I interpretate to spell Nazi Baby Killer and he cannot say I am wrong. In fact since the majority (I think I speak for the majority here) agrees with me Nazi Baby Killer is stuck with my (the majority's) decision. We'll have your desk plaque ready by Monday NBK.