Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And anyway, you lost. The SC didn't agree with your willful ignorance. Boo-hoo-hoo for you.
Yeah, it's all fun and games to you ...until SCOTUS decides we don't have any 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendment rights, either. Think very carefully about that... Are you sure you want a SCOTUS that rewrites law and/or the Constitution at whim?
Ah, I think I see where you guys are confused. Read this excerpt from King v. Burwell:
See, you guys are just looking at "isolated provisions" and finding plain meaning. But that's not what courts do. They read the words in their context in the "overall statutory scheme", i.e., how words fit in the entire statute. This is entirely consistent with what Justice Scalia has said in prior cases (I know you worship him).
That's why the Court found inconsistencies and ambiguities. The words didn't fit the overall statute. Hence, an ambiguity that the Court had to resolve.
That's where you guys got it so wrong.
Mick
The section you quoted:
"If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the "meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context." So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Our duty, after all, is "to construe statutes, not isolated provisions."
Roberts and Kennedy chose to ignore the 1st sentence of that quote. They wanted to uphold the subsidies for the federal exchange, so found ambiguity where there was none. Once they find 'ambiguity', they are free to once again rewrite the law. Though I don't worship Scalia, I give him for calling the ACA SCOTUScare.
"If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the "meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context." So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Our duty, after all, is "to construe statutes, not isolated provisions."
Roberts and Kennedy chose to ignore the 1st sentence of that quote. They wanted to uphold the subsidies for the federal exchange, so found ambiguity where there was none. Once they find 'ambiguity', they are free to once again rewrite the law. Though I don't worship Scalia, I give him for calling the ACA SCOTUScare.
The problem is that you narrowly viewing that word and clause rather than the statutory language that is the entire bill. That's what Roberts is saying there. If the entire ACA was "plain" they would enforce it to whatever was written. Since the ACA was not plain by virtue of this ambiguous phrase, it must be viewed in the context of the entire law.
Yeah, it's all fun and games to you ...until SCOTUS decides we don't have any 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendment rights, either. Think very carefully about that... Are you sure you want a SCOTUS that rewrites law and/or the Constitution at whim?
The issue is you don't agree with the SCOTUS. All this talk about how we are not following the Constitution is ignorant as that's not the issue.
Sorry the founders intended the Constitution to be a living document.
The issue is you don't agree with the SCOTUS. All this talk about how we are not following the Constitution is ignorant as that's not the issue.
Sorry the founders intended the Constitution to be a living document.
The whole "living document" versus as written argument didn't even exist back then. It's probably pretty safe to say they didn't really ponder that argument to the point that we have several hundred years later. What they certainly did intend was for the supreme court to be objective arbitrators of the law, and that being clearly not the case it's pretty much moot/academic to even worry about interpretations of the constitution given that they are just legislat--er, I mean ruling for what they support in a pretty consistent manner (including both wings of the court, only maybe and arguably excluding Kennedy).
The whole "living document" versus as written argument didn't even exist back then. It's probably pretty safe to say they didn't really ponder that argument to the point that we have several hundred years later. What they certainly did intend was for the supreme court to be objective arbitrators of the law, and that being clearly not the case it's pretty much moot/academic to even worry about interpretations of the constitution given that they are just legislat--er, I mean ruling for what they support in a pretty consistent manner (including both wings of the court, only maybe and arguably excluding Kennedy).
Well it couldn't have existed as they were just forming our government. It just doesn't make any sense to not have a living document.
Statutory interpretation is only applicable when the language of a law is ambiguous. In the case of the ACA, it ISN'T. The ACA law itself clearly states the definition of the term, "State."
They dont care about accuracy, they are glad the Supreme Court re-wrote the law as they deemed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for calling the ACA SCOTUScare.
