According to the U.S Supreme Court, the words written in law do not have exact meaning. Instead the intent of the lawmakers is what matters, not the actual words. So after today’s court ruling is law just executive interpretation/intent?
Are we in a post-constitutional American? I think we are.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
According to the U.S Supreme Court, the words written in law do not have exact meaning. Instead the intent of the lawmakers is what matters, not the actual words. So after today’s court ruling is law just executive interpretation/intent?
Are we in a post-constitutional American? I think we are.
[/quote]
I guess they need this to cover things like the second amendment and how they only really meant muskets.
No. Right wingers are being dramatic over this ruling. It was always a long shot. Even the chief architect of the argument conceded that.
The words used are not terribly clear. This shouldn’t be controversial - as a matter of craftsmanship, the ACA is atrocious. Ironically, that helps the drafters of the law, because courts are wary of legiating from the bench by way of departing from a meaning intended by the drafters. It’s reality - statutes are, all too often, poorly written, and courts - good ones, at least - avoid construing language to contradict legislative intent.
This case was no slam dunk - there were arguments on both sides that were compelling. But to suggest this ruling is some paradigmatic shift in how statutes are read is overstating it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No. Right wingers are being dramatic over this ruling. It was always a long shot. Even the chief architect of the argument conceded that.
The words used are not terribly clear. This shouldn’t be controversial - as a matter of craftsmanship, the ACA is atrocious. Ironically, that helps the drafters of the law, because courts are wary of legiating from the bench by way of departing from a meaning intended by the drafters. It’s reality - statutes are, all too often, poorly written, and courts - good ones, at least - avoid construing language to contradict legislative intent.
This case was no slam dunk - there were arguments on both sides that were compelling. But to suggest this ruling is some paradigmatic shift in how statutes are read is overstating it.[/quote]
The ACA is a giant pile of shit, even by other giant-pile-of-shit standards like, for example, ERISA. Striking down the ACA on con-law grounds would have been completely acceptable on the first go round and within the province of the role of the Court to interpret the constitution. But no honest person could conclude, based on the structure of the statute as a whole, that the intent of the Congress that passed this big stinking pile of shit was to exclude subsidies for the federal exchanges. To the extent Scalia claims otherwise, as Roberts pointed out with the cite below, he is just lying.
See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 549 (2012) (SCALIA Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, KENNEDY Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 570 “(Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”).
Yes it’s dead, and republicans dodged a huge bullet with this ruling.
“For the common good” will now be the main premise behind every law written, even if it’s written in pure dookie.
I first saw this when our high speed rail met none of the provisions passed by the voters, and when the cost went to triple what was voted on, the court sided with the government in the name of “being for the greater good.” I just never thought this would happen with SCOTUS.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No. Right wingers are being dramatic over this ruling. It was always a long shot. Even the chief architect of the argument conceded that.
The words used are not terribly clear. This shouldn’t be controversial - as a matter of craftsmanship, the ACA is atrocious. Ironically, that helps the drafters of the law, because courts are wary of legiating from the bench by way of departing from a meaning intended by the drafters. It’s reality - statutes are, all too often, poorly written, and courts - good ones, at least - avoid construing language to contradict legislative intent.
This case was no slam dunk - there were arguments on both sides that were compelling. But to suggest this ruling is some paradigmatic shift in how statutes are read is overstating it.[/quote]
The ACA is a giant pile of shit, even by other giant-pile-of-shit standards like, for example, ERISA. Striking down the ACA on con-law grounds would have been completely acceptable on the first go round and within the province of the role of the Court to interpret the constitution. But no honest person could conclude, based on the structure of the statute as a whole, that the intent of the Congress that passed this big stinking pile of shit was to exclude subsidies for the federal exchanges. To the extent Scalia claims otherwise, as Roberts pointed out with the cite below, he is just lying.
See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 549 (2012) (SCALIA Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, KENNEDY Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 570 “(Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”).
[/quote]
Sadly I am forced to agree with you and tbolt on this topic…I certainly don’t want to, because I hate the ACA with the fire of a thousand suns but…yeah
Scalia devoted 21 pages explaining why a certain statutory phrase was so clear it couldn’t have been ambiguous and therefore the Court had no reason to defer to intent. If it takes you 21 pages to explain why something has an obvious meaning, then, well, you’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Scalia devoted 21 pages explaining why a certain statutory phrase was so clear it couldn’t have been ambiguous and therefore the Court had no reason to defer to intent. If it takes you 21 pages to explain why something has an obvious meaning, then, well, you’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard.[/quote]
Bullshit. Did you read it?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Scalia devoted 21 pages explaining why a certain statutory phrase was so clear it couldn’t have been ambiguous and therefore the Court had no reason to defer to intent. If it takes you 21 pages to explain why something has an obvious meaning, then, well, you’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard.[/quote]
Bullshit. Did you read it?
[/quote]
Certainly did. Thanks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Scalia devoted 21 pages explaining why a certain statutory phrase was so clear it couldn’t have been ambiguous and therefore the Court had no reason to defer to intent. If it takes you 21 pages to explain why something has an obvious meaning, then, well, you’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard.[/quote]
Bullshit. Did you read it?
[/quote]
Certainly did. Thanks.[/quote]
So Roberts’ majority was how many pages? I mean since the number of pages is what matters, the majority must have been quite concise.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Scalia devoted 21 pages explaining why a certain statutory phrase was so clear it couldn’t have been ambiguous and therefore the Court had no reason to defer to intent. If it takes you 21 pages to explain why something has an obvious meaning, then, well, you’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard.[/quote]
Bullshit. Did you read it?
[/quote]
Certainly did. Thanks.[/quote]
So Roberts’ majority was how many pages? I mean since the number of pages is what matters, the majority must have been quite concise.
[/quote]
The number of pages isn’t determinative. An important issue in the case is whether the statute us ambiguous or not. If it is, there is a level of deference to intent, and usually the government’s interpretation wins (broadly speaking). If it’s not ambiguous, no need to defer.
Scalia didn’t want the government to win, so he attempted to claim that the statute wasn’t ambiguous. Then he took 21 pages to explain why the statute was clear as day, which undermines his argument.
Seriously, read the opinion. The one thing that is crystal clear is that you have not.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The number of pages isn’t determinative.
Then he took 21 pages to explain why the statute was clear as day, which undermines his argument.
[/quote]
The number of pages doesn’t matter.
The number of pages matters.
Thanks, got it.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The number of pages isn’t determinative.
Then he took 21 pages to explain why the statute was clear as day, which undermines his argument.
[/quote]
The number of pages doesn’t matter.
The number of pages matters.
Thanks, got it.
[/quote]
Roberts could write 10 pages or 70, but that doesn’t impact his point. Scalia’s point? It does. Well, assuming you have any horse sense, it does.
Try reading the opinion, which you clearly haven’t done.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
T-bolt, c’mon man. Sheesh.[/quote]
C’mon with what exactly? Did you read the opinion and the dissent?
Scalia is my favorite Justice. His opinions are actually readable and coherent unlike Sotomayor or Ginsberg.
Another thing I found quite hilarious is it took 360ish million to roll out the ACA. America has 317 million citizens. You could have taken over 1M for each citizen and put it in an account for healthcare and saved money.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Scalia is my favorite Justice. His opinions are actually readable and coherent unlike Sotomayor or Ginsberg.
Another thing I found quite hilarious is it took 360ish million to roll out the ACA. America has 317 million citizens. You could have taken over 1M for each citizen and put it in an account for healthcare and saved money.[/quote]
I’m guessing math isn’t your best subject.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Scalia is my favorite Justice. His opinions are actually readable and coherent unlike Sotomayor or Ginsberg.
Another thing I found quite hilarious is it took 360ish million to roll out the ACA. America has 317 million citizens. You could have taken over 1M for each citizen and put it in an account for healthcare and saved money.[/quote]
I’m guessing math isn’t your best subject.[/quote]
Yeah that was pretty bad. I admit I fucked that up. What I get for being up at 4 am.
At least each citizen could have gotten a cup of coffee, maybe.
Bauber- I know you were in L school, are you done and working these days? Not meaning to derail the thread just interested