Did the Supreme Courrt rule correctly from a legal standpoint

[5T3V3]

Did the supreme court over step its bounds in it's most recent ruling on Obama care by interpreting any state to include "the federal government"? Is there any other time the courts have ruled that State referred to anything other than one or all of the several states? Does this new power open the gates for the courts to redefine other words like Marriage, Abortion, Taxation, .... ? Do you see any potential problems with this new power? Is it abuse? Can / Could it be abused and how?

Don't make this about whether you believe Obama care is right or wrong - try and focus on whether the ruling was within the norms of the supreme court or ground break as some have argued.

[WombRaider]

I think that due to the ruling, the ACA is actually stronger, legally, than it was before. Roberts didn't just find the subsidies legal, if you read his decision, he basically says they're a permanent component of the ACA. He is saying that Congress is the only thing that can in any way change the law from here forward. This makes it stronger by now requiring that whoever wants to challenge the law must hold the White House and have a 60-vote total in the Senate.

I don't think they overstepped. I think the crux of the argument is in Robert's widely disseminated quote:

"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," Roberts wrote in his opinion.

I don't personally think that Congress intended to write the law to say that only those who purchased policies on state exchanges would qualify for subsidies. Obviously, Roberts thinks this as well.

[CuteOldGuy]

No. This was horrifically wrong from a legal point of view. An epic disaster.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I think the crux of the argument is in Robert's widely disseminated quote:

"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," Roberts wrote in his opinion.

And that is not the "purpose" of the SCOTUS ...

..... to rubber stamp what the SCOTUS "thinks" was the motive of Congress.

"Checks and Balances" .... not rubber stamp. That's a dangerous precedent.

"The shoe is on the other foot soon enough."

[5T3V3]

i guess i should have said i meant gay marraige ...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"The shoe is on the other foot soon enough."

The shoe is always on the other foot soon enough....Jesus. Those shoes are called elections.

Cry all you want about a ruling being correct or not, the fact of the matter is that you have to convince at least 5 justices and once done our system says it is then the law of the land until other wise amended or litigated.

So we in this forum cry about folks that are actual Supreme Court Justices not knowing anything about the Constitution! Interpreting it wrong....or more precisely not interpreting up to our standards!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I think that due to the ruling, the ACA is actually stronger, legally, than it was before. Roberts didn't just find the subsidies legal, if you read his decision, he basically says they're a permanent component of the ACA. He is saying that Congress is the only thing that can in any way change the law from here forward. This makes it stronger by now requiring that whoever wants to challenge the law must hold the White House and have a 60-vote total in the Senate.

I don't think they overstepped. I think the crux of the argument is in Robert's widely disseminated quote:

"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," Roberts wrote in his opinion.

I don't personally think that Congress intended to write the law to say that only those who purchased policies on state exchanges would qualify for subsidies. Obviously, Roberts thinks this as well.

The Supreme Court is not in the business of "interpreting" written law. Otherwise, why have a 14th amendment when the court could just interpret that all people black, white, or otherwise are covered. They did not because that is not what the law said.

Same with the ACA (Obamacare). Since it was considered to be a tax by the Supreme Court then ONLY the Congress can make changes to any portion of the law. Not just from this point on but from the beginning. This means that all of the changes and delays by Obama were illegal if anyone had the balls or respect for the law to pursue it.

You can say what the Congress intended to do but what counts is what was in the law the day they voted on that law and only that.

Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg, and even Sotomayor have made statements that many of their decisions are not according to the law...but they should be.