|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies.
Jun 25, 2015, 10:23 AM
|
|
Developing...
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15686
Joined: 10/10/02
|
Awesome.. SCOTUS gets to legislate from the bench now too...***
Jun 25, 2015, 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
On the contrary, this appears to be an act of judicial
Jun 25, 2015, 10:35 AM
|
|
restraint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
SCOTUS gets to interpret law from the bench.
Jun 25, 2015, 10:58 AM
[ in reply to Awesome.. SCOTUS gets to legislate from the bench now too...*** ] |
|
It's what they're there for.
"Judicial activism" is a term we give to decisions we don't like.
The argument that "state" means "state" seemed good, but in the end, the Court refused to interpret the law in a way that destroyed the purpose of its enactment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Pretty odd way to interpret the law
Jun 25, 2015, 2:02 PM
|
|
I agree this isn't an example of judicial activism, but they certainly did read something into the law that it doesn't say in the law. In that sense, the court basically amended the law to say what they thought it needed to say for the exchange subisidies to be upheld.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Pretty odd way to interpret the law
Jun 25, 2015, 3:46 PM
|
|
I think the Court's interpretive move falls under the theory of purposivism, if my law school memory serves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15686
Joined: 10/10/02
|
I was under the impression that
Jun 25, 2015, 4:06 PM
|
|
they were tasked with reading the law as written, and judging whether or not it was in violation of the constitution. Not saying.. ehhh.. I think I know what they meant to write.. It's cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
A seemingly correct, but actually incorrect, impression.***
Jun 29, 2015, 1:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15686
Joined: 10/10/02
|
Where am I incorrect? Just curious.
Jun 29, 2015, 4:55 PM
|
|
Judicial Branch: Headed by the Supreme Court. Its powers include interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states' rights.
But I guess they have more interpreting power on laws that just "reviewing" them.
Wouldn't be the first time that I have been wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Where am I incorrect? Just curious.
Jul 1, 2015, 9:39 AM
|
|
It's a good question, and the interpretive aspect is crucial. The courts don't "read the law as written" in a black-and-white sense. If they did, they would be acting like a malicious genie who grants your wish but takes every word literally even when it's not what the wisher intended.
Instead, the courts will not take every word at face value or simplistically when doing so would undermine the underlying purpose of the law, or violates common sense when read in context, or would have an absurd result. There are books dedicated to interpretive methods, including one by Justice Scalia called A Matter of Interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [512]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 891
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Awesome.. SCOTUS gets to legislate from the bench now too...***
Jun 25, 2015, 11:36 AM
[ in reply to Awesome.. SCOTUS gets to legislate from the bench now too...*** ] |
|
They explain it in the majority ruling
"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."
Also the Scalia dissent is great. He gets so pissy but I was hoping he would write the dissent for the gay marriage ruling (he may rule in favor I guess, he set the president for a lot of the pro gay marriage rulings with his dissent in the sodomy case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13970
Joined: 7/31/04
|
PLEASE PAY FOR MY INSURANCE.
Jun 25, 2015, 12:20 PM
|
|
$6000 DEDUCTIBLE
$600 A MONTH
MY SUBSIDY PLAN WAS CANCELLED . REALLY CAN'T AFFORD THIS. I'M GOING BROKE!
PLEASE HELP
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23464
Joined: 7/13/12
|
gofundme.com***
Jun 25, 2015, 3:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Medicare got started up in 1966, and since then
Jun 25, 2015, 2:31 PM
|
|
the government has managed to accumulate $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities, meaning they are spending that much over and above what they deduct from your paycheck.
I can't wait to see what can be accomplished now that politicians have their hands in the entire health care system.
This party is just getting started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111559]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73748
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies.
Jun 29, 2015, 1:19 PM
|
|
go free market health care. The trick would be to give everyone diabetes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
