Chief Justice Roberts care has been upheld

[AUtiger98 24]

The Supreme Court should've sent the law back to Congress and asked to fix the ambiguous language of the Act. I guess instead they decided to rule in favor of not the explicit wordage of the Act itself but the context of the act in order to answer the ambiguous question. With billions of dollars on the line, why not play it safe and send it back to Congress to be amended? Sadly I have to agree with the same punk that said the 6 SC Justices couldn't read.

Crap.

+100 points!

[TitanTiger 20,479]

The Supreme Court should've sent the law back to Congress and asked to fix the ambiguous language of the Act. I guess instead they decided to rule in favor of not the explicit wordage of the Act itself but the context of the act in order to answer the ambiguous question. With billions of dollars on the line, why not play it safe and send it back to Congress to be amended? Sadly I have to agree with the same punk that said the 6 SC Justices couldn't read.

Crap.

I'm not sure they can send a law back to Congress and tell them to do anything. They can simply rule on it. It would be up to Congress whether or not to make adjustments. But the SCOTUS can only send cases back to lower courts to correct things, not back to another branch of government with instructions or requests to change something.

[AURaptor 1,122]

To say this court did the right thing is to say that no does not mean no. Words have no meaning now.

Your words have no meaning .

And according to the scotus, neither does statutory law.

[TexasTiger 12,848]

To say this court did the right thing is to say that no does not mean no. Words have no meaning now.

Your words have no meaning .

And according to the scotus, neither does statutory law.

They clearly indicated those words had meaning, you just don't like it .

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Them judges is dumb. They dont no nuthin about no law. They cant read no words.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The Supreme Court should've sent the law back to Congress and asked to fix the ambiguous language of the Act. I guess instead they decided to rule in favor of not the explicit wordage of the Act itself but the context of the act in order to answer the ambiguous question. With billions of dollars on the line, why not play it safe and send it back to Congress to be amended? Sadly I have to agree with the same punk that said the 6 SC Justices couldn't read.

Crap.

I'm not sure they can send a law back to Congress and tell them to do anything. They can simply rule on it. It would be up to Congress whether or not to make adjustments. But the SCOTUS can only send cases back to lower courts to correct things, not back to another branch of government with instructions or requests to change something.

You're right. I meant or implied that SCOTUS could have provided a better understanding as to why the bill wasn't affirmed, allowing Congress to fix and draft another bill if that was in their interest. I didn't intend for my previous post to be taken as literally as it sounded so that's my bad.

[AURaptor 1,122]

To say this court did the right thing is to say that no does not mean no. Words have no meaning now.

Your words have no meaning .

And according to the scotus, neither does statutory law.

They clearly indicated those words had meaning, you just don't like it .

Me not liking it is irrelevant. The point that I don't like is that it's inaccurate and false. Those words did not have the meaning that the judges said they did. It's just a fact.

[TexasTiger 12,848]

To say this court did the right thing is to say that no does not mean no. Words have no meaning now.

Your words have no meaning .

And according to the scotus, neither does statutory law.

They clearly indicated those words had meaning, you just don't like it .

Me not liking it is irrelevant. The point that I don't like is that it's inaccurate and false. Those words did not have the meaning that the judges said they did. It's just a fact.

Is a corporation a "person"?

[AUtiger98 24]

To say this court did the right thing is to say that no does not mean no. Words have no meaning now.

Your words have no meaning .

And according to the scotus, neither does statutory law.

They clearly indicated those words had meaning, you just don't like it .

Me not liking it is irrelevant. The point that I don't like is that it's inaccurate and false. Those words did not have the meaning that the judges said they did. It's just a fact.

Is a corporation a "person"?

If the court says so, then it is.

Seriously, this is the problem I have with the Supreme Court. It only takes 5 people from Harvard and Yale to determine if Slavery is legal, Separate but Equal is legal, if a corporation is a person, when a baby is a person, if the government can require you buy insurance, or if gays can marry. I think we can all agree the SCOTUS hasn't been right on every decision.

[quietfan 233]

quiet - there are proper functions of govt set up by the constitution. AirForce is part of the military, so yes, it is specifically a proper function of govt. Giving $ to pay for healthcare , which is NOT a right, is not a proper function of govt. Nor is Social Security. Just because it's passed and we're doing it, doesn't make it right.

Allowing slavery was contrary to the founding of this country, extra constitutional, yet we allowed it for almost 100 years. That never made it right.

And yes, if you want to get twisted because I compared slavery to Social Security of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. I meant every word of it.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the right to maintain an army and a navy. Article 2, Section 2 makes the President the commander-in-chief of said army and navy. But air forces are never mentioned. How much of a strict constructionist are you? (Perhaps the Air Force should have remained the "Army Air Force", in parallel to the naval air forces?)

I would not say slavery before 13th Amendment was extra constitutional, otherwise the 13th Amendment was unnecessary. In fact, Article 2, Section 9a was included to protect the institution until at least 1808 and the 3/5th rule of Article 1, Section 2c acknowledged it.

I respect your choice to question the constitutionality of Social Security or funding the Center for Disease Control, since the extent of implied powers is a legitimate topic for debate/interpretation. And I'm not upset or twisted that you compare the three in discussing the constitutionality of slavery, Social Security, or the CDC: All questions of implied powers are worthy of debate. Of course the courts, the ones with actual authority to interpret the extent of implied powers, have never ruled the AF, SS, the AFA, or the Center for Disease Control unconstitutional.

Like you, I would always hope that all three branches of our government act morally, and slavery is certainly immoral IMO. But technically the Constitution does not require them to do so or to base any of their official actions on morality. And morality is as open to interpretation as law. The 1st Amendment explicitly forbids basing laws on one particular religion establishment's definition of morality, however.

[AUtiger98 24]

quiet - there are proper functions of govt set up by the constitution. AirForce is part of the military, so yes, it is specifically a proper function of govt. Giving $ to pay for healthcare , which is NOT a right, is not a proper function of govt. Nor is Social Security. Just because it's passed and we're doing it, doesn't make it right.

Allowing slavery was contrary to the founding of this country, extra constitutional, yet we allowed it for almost 100 years. That never made it right.

And yes, if you want to get twisted because I compared slavery to Social Security of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. I meant every word of it.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the right to maintain an army and a navy. Article 2, Section 2 makes the President the commander-in-chief of said army and navy. But air forces are never mentioned. How much of a strict constructionist are you? (Perhaps the Air Force should have remained the "Army Air Force", in parallel to the naval air forces?)

I would not say slavery before 13th Amendment was extra constitutional, otherwise the 13th Amendment was unnecessary. In fact, Article 2, Section 9a was included to protect the institution until at least 1808 and the 3/5th rule of Article 1, Section 2c acknowledged it.

I respect your choice to question the constitutionality of Social Security or funding the Center for Disease Control, since the extent of implied powers is a legitimate topic for debate/interpretation. And I'm not upset or twisted that you compare the three in discussing the constitutionality of slavery, Social Security, or the CDC: All questions of implied powers are worthy of debate. Of course the courts, the ones with actual authority to interpret the extent of implied powers, have never ruled the AF, SS, the AFA, or the Center for Disease Control unconstitutional.

Like you, I would always hope that all three branches of our government act morally, and slavery is certainly immoral IMO. But technically the Constitution does not require them to do so or to base any of their official actions on morality. And morality is as open to interpretation as law. The 1st Amendment explicitly forbids basing laws on one particular religion establishment's definition of morality, however.

Raptor and QF, Didn't the SCOTUS rule the SS and ACA were a tax, and therefore Congress has the authority to tax?

[JoeBags7277 734]

While that other case is getting all the attention, I believe King v. Burwell will ultimately have the most profound impact of this week's SCOTUS cases. In it, the court literally took the ACA to mean the exact opposite of what it had previously interpreted the same law to mean when a previous challenge threatened its survival. Such contortions amount to a new era in the judicial branch, one in which it has now become the norm to interpret law either in a manner that bends to the will of a vocal faction of people- whether they be a minority or a majority- or in a manner that caters to the will of the political faction(s) currently holding power. I'd love to see someone make the case that the decision in Burwell was based on a principled interpretation of the law, rather than a transparent nod to the executive branch, and a feather in the cap of the progressive era notion of an imperial presidency. Broadly speaking, this could be devastating to the idea that the Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the unpopular minority, and the last check against mob rule.

[AURaptor 1,122]

quiet - there are proper functions of govt set up by the constitution. AirForce is part of the military, so yes, it is specifically a proper function of govt. Giving $ to pay for healthcare , which is NOT a right, is not a proper function of govt. Nor is Social Security. Just because it's passed and we're doing it, doesn't make it right.

Allowing slavery was contrary to the founding of this country, extra constitutional, yet we allowed it for almost 100 years. That never made it right.

And yes, if you want to get twisted because I compared slavery to Social Security of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. I meant every word of it.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the right to maintain an army and a navy. Article 2, Section 2 makes the President the commander-in-chief of said army and navy. But air forces are never mentioned. How much of a strict constructionist are you? (Perhaps the Air Force should have remained the "Army Air Force", in parallel to the naval air forces?)

I would not say slavery before 13th Amendment was extra constitutional, otherwise the 13th Amendment was unnecessary. In fact, Article 2, Section 9a was included to protect the institution until at least 1808 and the 3/5th rule of Article 1, Section 2c acknowledged it.

I respect your choice to question the constitutionality of Social Security or funding the Center for Disease Control, since the extent of implied powers is a legitimate topic for debate/interpretation. And I'm not upset or twisted that you compare the three in discussing the constitutionality of slavery, Social Security, or the CDC: All questions of implied powers are worthy of debate. Of course the courts, the ones with actual authority to interpret the extent of implied powers, have never ruled the AF, SS, the AFA, or the Center for Disease Control unconstitutional.

Like you, I would always hope that all three branches of our government act morally, and slavery is certainly immoral IMO. But technically the Constitution does not require them to do so or to base any of their official actions on morality. And morality is as open to interpretation as law. The 1st Amendment explicitly forbids basing laws on one particular religion establishment's definition of morality, however.

Raptor and QF, Didn't the SCOTUS rule the SS and ACA were a tax, and therefore Congress has the authority to tax?

That was the case for the ACA , even though the WH lawyers specifically argued it was NOT a tax.

Again, making up reasons to pass a law where none existed.

[DKW 86 7,419]

First Person in the Nation to figure out how to fix the ACA wins the Presidency.

[AURaptor 1,122]

First Person in the Nation to figure out how to fix the ACA wins the Presidency.

It's not designed to be fixed. It's designed to fail, as it currently is doing, and then the Left will declare the only way to solve the issue is to go fully over to govt run healthcare.

This isn't a secret. Obama literally stated this was the plan, a few years before he ran for office. He's videoed saying he's for a single payer plan, and then had the gaul to claim he never said he was for a single payer plan.

The elites look the other way and act as if this isn't anything at all, that it isn't part of the big plan.

[TexasTiger 12,848]

While that other case is getting all the attention, I believe King v. Burwell will ultimately have the most profound impact of this week's SCOTUS cases. In it, the court literally took the ACA to mean the exact opposite of what it had previously interpreted the same law to mean when a previous challenge threatened its survival. Such contortions amount to a new era in the judicial branch, one in which it has now become the norm to interpret law either in a manner that bends to the will of a vocal faction of people- whether they be a minority or a majority- or in a manner that caters to the will of the political faction(s) currently holding power. I'd love to see someone make the case that the decision in Burwell was based on a principled interpretation of the law, rather than a transparent nod to the executive branch, and a feather in the cap of the progressive era notion of an imperial presidency. Broadly speaking, this could be devastating to the idea that the Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the unpopular minority, and the last check against mob rule.

What are you talking about ?