Chief Justice Roberts care has been upheld

[AURaptor 1,122]

Chief Justice Roberts care has been upheld The country is now officially over.

[AUDub 11,137]

[AURaptor 1,122]

The law has been rewritten by the courts. Spin it anyway you like there's no denying it.

[quietfan 233]

And by 6-3 vote, not a bare minimum 5-4!

Personally, I'm hoping Justice Roberts will continue his leftward lean long enough to back the 1st & 14th Amendments and defend all persons' equal marital rights before the law, regardless of the anatomy of the individual they desire to wed.

[autigeremt 6,589]

If anyone expected otherwise....you have been living in a gas chamber and lived. LOL

[AURaptor 1,122]

The destruction of the country isn't anything to about .

[AURaptor 1,122]

If anyone expected otherwise....you have been living in a gas chamber and lived. LOL

Not sure that reference , but expecting the courts to rule on & not MAKE laws isn't crazy .

[AUDub 11,137]

The destruction of the country isn't anything to :cheer:/> about .

[homersapien 11,357]

The destruction of the country isn't anything to :cheer:/> about .

And they accuse ME of "alarmism" by simply presenting scientific facts.

[AURaptor 1,122]

That's ok homie. We'll all die sooner because of this mess, lose more of our rights & your whack job lefty dreams of lower population will come true.

And it won't even take 100,000 years. !

[homersapien 11,357]

That's ok homie. We'll all die sooner because of this mess, lose more of our rights & your whack job lefty dreams of lower population will come true.

And it won't even take 100,000 years. !

"Wack job lefty dreams"?

[autigeremt 6,589]

If anyone expected otherwise....you have been living in a gas chamber and lived. LOL

Not sure that reference , but expecting the courts to rule on & not MAKE laws isn't crazy .

Why not? They rewrote the law to begin with...why would you think they'd have a change of heart?

[RunInRed 16,372]

As others have said ... it was not just Roberts, a 6-3 ruling.

Nevertheless, this is gold from Roberts:

And of course, this, Roberts trolls the dissenters by pointing out their own words in Sebelius ...

[autigeremt 6,589]

Of course it is! He rewrote the law to make it work.

[AURaptor 1,122]

If anyone expected otherwise....you have been living in a gas chamber and lived. LOL

Not sure that reference , but expecting the courts to rule on & not MAKE laws isn't crazy .

Why not? They rewrote the law to begin with...why would you think they'd have a change of heart?

Idk, the idea of statutory law, maybe?

Guess that's no longer a thing in this country.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Of course it is! He rewrote the law to make it work. :)/>

He rewrote nothing. Courts have to work with inartful language sometimes. His rationale is clear and consistent with statutory interpretation. He's very conservative, but not a pure ideologue.

[AUtiger98 24]

Of course it is! He rewrote the law to make it work. :)/>

His rationale is clear and consistent with statutory interpretation. He's very conservative, but not a pure ideologue.

So if Congress passed Obamacare to improve the health care market not destroy them, and the president/executive branch can change the law in order prevent the market from being destroyed, can the next president declare the healthcare market is being destroyed and then make further changes to Obamacare to "save the market"?

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Of course it is! He rewrote the law to make it work. :)/>

His rationale is clear and consistent with statutory interpretation. He's very conservative, but not a pure ideologue.

So if Congress passed Obamacare to improve the health care market not destroy them, and the president/executive branch can change the law in order prevent the market from being destroyed, can the next president declare the healthcare market is being destroyed and then make further changes to Obamacare to "save the market"?

You apparently didn't read what he wrote or have poor reading comprehension.

[AUtiger98 24]

As others have said ... it was not just Roberts, a 6-3 ruling.

Nevertheless, this is gold from Roberts:

And of course, this, Roberts trolls the dissenters by pointing out their own words in Sebelius ...

I'm interested to know how far back we can go to interpret existing laws to determine what Congress's intent when they passed it?

[AUtiger98 24]

Of course it is! He rewrote the law to make it work. :)/>

His rationale is clear and consistent with statutory interpretation. He's very conservative, but not a pure ideologue.

So if Congress passed Obamacare to improve the health care market not destroy them, and the president/executive branch can change the law in order prevent the market from being destroyed, can the next president declare the healthcare market is being destroyed and then make further changes to Obamacare to "save the market"?

You apparently didn't read what he wrote or have poor reading comprehension.

Sure I did, paraphrasing "If Congress writes a sorry law, we can't make a judgement that destroys the healthcare system. We have to fix it for them, even if it destroys the Constitution and the future of the US".

[AURaptor 1,122]

Those who can't read are those who voted to uphold this law, not as written, but as they WISH it was written.

[AUtiger98 24]

Given this ruling, does the president have the power to change the immigration law because he has determined the Congress did not intend to destroy the county with the immigration laws they previously passed?

Bottom line, I'm more concerned about the precedent being set for future courts.

[AURaptor 1,122]

98 - what difference , at this point , does it make ?

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Of course it is! He rewrote the law to make it work. :)/>

His rationale is clear and consistent with statutory interpretation. He's very conservative, but not a pure ideologue.

So if Congress passed Obamacare to improve the health care market not destroy them, and the president/executive branch can change the law in order prevent the market from being destroyed, can the next president declare the healthcare market is being destroyed and then make further changes to Obamacare to "save the market"?

You apparently didn't read what he wrote or have poor reading comprehension.

Sure I did, paraphrasing "If Congress writes a sorry law, we can't make a judgement that destroys the healthcare system. We have to fix it for them, even if it destroys the Constitution and the future of the US".

Okay, no reading comprehension-- got it.

[AURaptor 1,122]

What word in " established by the state " is confusing to you TT ?