Chief Justice Brutus Roberts

Did it ever occur to the OP and other nitwits on the right that the reason why so many justices appointed by republican presidents vote in a manner that conflicts with errant conservative dogma is because that dogma is factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law – where republican appointees review an issue in good faith, examining the relevant case law and precedent, the objective facts and documented evidence, and the legislative history and context of the measure subject to review, and base their opinion on settled and accepted jurisprudence most on the right disagree with for purely subjective, partisan reasons having nothing to do whatsoever with settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence.

In essence what most on the right are advocating is that republican appointees should ignore Constitutional case law and settled, accepted jurisprudence and instead rule based solely on subjective political opinion.

The ridiculous right, indeed.
 
Did it ever occur to the OP and other nitwits on the right that the reason why so many justices appointed by republican presidents vote in a manner that conflicts with errant conservative dogma is because that dogma is factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law – where republican appointees review an issue in good faith, examining the relevant case law and precedent, the objective facts and documented evidence, and the legislative history and context of the measure subject to review, and base their opinion on settled and accepted jurisprudence most on the right disagree with for purely subjective, partisan reasons having nothing to do whatsoever with settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence.

In essence what most on the right are advocating is that republican appointees should ignore Constitutional case law and settled, accepted jurisprudence and instead rule based solely on subjective political opinion.

The ridiculous right, indeed.


Clearly, C_Chamber_Pot, you don't understand the law.

I can help.


1. ObamaCare explicitly states that subsidies can only.....ONLY....be give to those who purchase through the exchanges set up by the state.

The wording "...established by the State"

2. 'State' is explained:
"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and whichdefines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia,actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."In Upholding Obamacare s Subsidies Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law Again - Hit Run Reason.com


And you are a lying sack of sewage.

I'm right about that, too.
 
OC 11748901
2. 'State' is explained:
"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State,".

"established by (a) State"

It does not say that in the ACA. It says:

"established by (the) State"

You are citing a liar. That is why you cannot make an argument. More intelligent people than you on the highest court in the land where they make arguments decided basically that you are wrong and an idiot. You are still citing a liar who changed the wording.

If you still need help think that "established by (the) State" was to mean 'not by the private sector.
 
Last edited:
OC 11748901
2. 'State' is explained:
"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State,".

"established by (a) State"

It does not say that in the ACA. It says:

"established by (the) State"

You are citing a liar. That is why you cannot make an argument. More intelligent people than you on the highest court in the land where they make arguments decided basically that you are wrong and an idiot. You are still citing a liar who changed the wording.

If you still need help think that "established by (the) State" was to mean 'not by the private sector.




It's so close, I can't put my finger on it: are you simply an imbecile....or a bald-faced liar.


You can opt for 'Liberal,' as that covers both.
 


"2 KING v. BURWELL Syllabus cent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. §36B. In addition to those three reforms, the Act requires the creation of an “Exchange” in each State....

 The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility for “[tax credits] under section 36B” and for “any other assistance or subsidies available for coverage obtained through” an “Exchange established by the State.” 42 U. S. C. §1396w–3(b)(1)(B)–(C).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf


Thank you woodie....

That pretty much destroys the Liberal in post #63
 
"Chief Justice Roberts may have had legal and political reasons for ignoring the common usage of words, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that, like so many others in our culture, he felt that being a stickler for a word’s actual meaning was just pedantic, a trivial matter when compared to the importance of some larger cause—in his case, delivering what he thought Congress really intended.

Reality is not a Rorschach test. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. We may think that we can change the meaning of words and institutions at will, but in the long run an undertow of reality brings us back to earth.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher of the “will to power,” once said, “All things are subject to interpretation [and] whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

So true. Last week the Supreme Court chose power over truth—and the meaning of words—twice."

Originally published in The Washington Times
 

Forum List

Back
Top