Supreme Court's new function in govt: Writing new laws from the bench

[Little-Acorn]

Well, this time I take no pleasure in being right.
Supremes find government confiscation of raisin crops unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Uh-oh Supreme Court will hear case re Obamacare subsides illegal in states without state exchanges US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Supremes find government confiscation of raisin crops unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Roberts court has now established itself as a second legislative branch in the Federal government. And this one is unelected.

The Supremes' original role, of course, was to act as a judicial court: Deciding how the law as written, applied to real-world cases; and protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution.

But in two consecutive cases now, they have shifted their role to some new ones.

When asked a few years ago to decide whether the Mandate in the ACA law was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an astonishing decision that (a) the mandate was clearly unconstitutional since it penalized people for NOT buying something, (b) if the law had taxed them instead of penalizing them then it would be "barely acceptable" since Congress does have the power to tax, and (c) Roberts would now rewrite the law, removing the word "penalty" wherever it occurred (it was in the law in 17 places) and replacing it with "tax". He then declared the newly-written law constitutional and binding, despite its never having been passed in that form by Congress nor signed by the President.

In doing so, he ignored the fact that the Congress that passed the original ACA, never would have passed it in its new form. A number of Democrat congressmen had gone on the record declaring they would not vote for it if it contained any new taxes. And the leftist fanatics who wrote it, spent weeks assuring them that it did not contain any new taxes at all, only penalties, and that's why those congressmen should vote for it. So it passed by a one-vote margin.

The ink was barely dry before those same leftist fanatics were sending briefs to the Supreme Court, insisting that the law contained no penalties at all, only taxes. (In his novel "1984", George Orwell sardonically referred to this kind of complete reversal, as "doublethink".)

Chief Justice Roberts then announced a new purpose for the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law as written and upholding the Constitution, he now stated that the Court's new function, was to do whatever Congress wanted. If the law was constitutional as written, fine. If it wasn't, the Court would rewrite it, making whatever changes were needed so they could declare it "constitutional". And they would NOT ask Congress to vote on it in its new form, despite the Constitutional requirement that they do so.

And now they have done the same thing again, ironically to the same law (only a different part of it).

The law as written, says that states would get Federal subsidies if they set up their own exchanges. Roberts seems to have decided that they really meant that ALL states would get Federal subsidies. Despite the architects of the law publicly announcing that that was not its intent at all. They wrote it that way to force states to set up their own exchanges, by deliberately withholding funds from those that didn't.

So Roberts decided to change the law again, and proclaim that it now said that all states would get subsidies, despite its clear wording to the contrary. And, of course, the Congress would not be asked to vote on the law in its new form, despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.

There seems to be no point in our having a Congress any more. Or a Constitution, that lists requirements for making laws. Both are being freely ignored nowadays, by a Court that has decided it knows what they "really wanted" (never mind that the Congressmen themselves have declared otherwise), and that has decided it has the power to rewrite laws without sending them back to Congress for re-approval.

Obama isn't the only one with a pen and a phone. With a Court like this behind him legislating from the bench, he needs nothing more. And he especially doesn't need some pesky elected Congress that won't fall in line and obey his dictates.

He and his minions (on and off the bench) merely need to announce that Congress didn't really mean the laws they passed. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.

Orwell was right. He was merely 30-odd years early.

 

[Skylar]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

 

[hangover]

Cons loved it when they thought SCOTUS was a GOP tool. Like when money was ruled free speech, and corporations are people. Now all of a sudden SCOTUS is writing laws instead of interpreting them. Really, cons even hate themselves.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law.

Correction: They lied about the legislative intent of the law.

And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

Correction: The guy who wrote the law, said that was exactly its intent: To coerce states into forming their own exchanges, by withholding money from the ones who didn't.

You're 0-for-2 so far in this thread. Want to go for the trifecta?

 

[007]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

NO they didn't. They voted with as much political activism and corruption as they possibly could.

Even the author of that part of SCOTUScare puts it very bluntly, and makes SCOTUS out to be the corrupt hacks that they are...

Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies



Now there is the PROOF. You want to argue against that, then you are one fucking ignorant dumbass.

 

[Freewill]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

Gruber said that was the intent, why do you ignore that fact? You can't just keep repeating a lie, oh right, you certainly have shown that ability. It is one thing to be wrong but you have been shown the video of Gruber saying what was the intent and yet you continue on.

 

[Skylar]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

NO they didn't. They voted with as much political activism and corruption as they possibly could.

Even the author of that part of SCOTUScare puts it very bluntly, and makes SCOTUS out to be the corrupt hacks that they are...

Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies



Now there is the PROOF. You want to argue against that, then you are one fucking ignorant dumbass.

'
Gruber was clear as a bell: the law says that "if the states don't provide it the federal backstop will".

Gruber pointed out that the federal backstop was slow to roll out. And without it, the citizens in states without a state exchange wouldn't get the subsidy.

The federal backstop is fully rolled out now. Thus, as Gruber says in your own video: f the states don't provide it the federal backstop will.

 

[Freewill]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, this time I take no pleasure in being right.
Supremes find government confiscation of raisin crops unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Uh-oh Supreme Court will hear case re Obamacare subsides illegal in states without state exchanges US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Supremes find government confiscation of raisin crops unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Roberts court has now established itself as a second legislative branch in the Federal government. And this one is unelected.

The Supremes' original role, of course, was to act as a judicial court: Deciding how the law as written, applied to real-world cases; and protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution.

But in two consecutive cases now, they have shifted their role to some new ones.

When asked a few years ago to decide whether the Mandate in the ACA law was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an astonishing decision that (a) the mandate was clearly unconstitutional since it penalized people for NOT buying something, (b) if the law had taxed them instead of penalizing them then it would be "barely acceptable" since Congress does have the power to tax, and (c) Roberts would now rewrite the law, removing the word "penalty" wherever it occurred (it was in the law in 17 places) and replacing it with "tax". He then declared the newly-written law constitutional and binding, despite its never having been passed in that form by Congress nor signed by the President.

In doing so, he ignored the fact that the Congress that passed the original ACA, never would have passed it in its new form. A number of Democrat congressmen had gone on the record declaring they would not vote for it if it contained any new taxes. And the leftist fanatics who wrote it, spent weeks assuring them that it did not contain any new taxes at all, only penalties, and that's why those congressmen should vote for it. So it passed by a one-vote margin.

The ink was barely dry before those same leftist fanatics were sending briefs to the Supreme Court, insisting that the law contained no penalties at all, only taxes. (In his novel "1984", George Orwell sardonically referred to this kind of complete reversal, as "doublethink".)

Chief Justice Roberts then announced a new purpose for the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law as written and upholding the Constitution, he now stated that the Court's new function, was to do whatever Congress wanted. If the law was constitutional as written, fine. If it wasn't, the Court would rewrite it, making whatever changes were needed so they could declare it "constitutional". And they would NOT ask Congress to vote on it in its new form, despite the Constitutional requirement that they do so.

And now they have done the same thing again, ironically to the same law (only a different part of it).

The law as written, says that states would get Federal subsidies if they set up their own exchanges. Roberts seems to have decided that they really meant that ALL states would get Federal subsidies. Despite the architects of the law publicly announcing that that was not its intent at all. They wrote it that way to force states to set up their own exchanges, by deliberately withholding funds from those that didn't.

So Roberts decided to change the law again, and proclaim that it now said that all states would get subsidies, despite its clear wording to the contrary. And, of course, the Congress would not be asked to vote on the law in its new form, despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.

There seems to be no point in our having a Congress any more. Or a Constitution, that lists requirements for making laws. Both are being freely ignored nowadays, by a Court that has decided it knows what they "really wanted" (never mind that the Congressmen themselves have declared otherwise), and that has decided it has the power to rewrite laws without sending them back to Congress for re-approval.

Obama isn't the only one with a pen and a phone. With a Court like this behind him legislating from the bench, he needs nothing more. And he especially doesn't need some pesky elected Congress that won't fall in line and obey his dictates.

He and his minions (on and off the bench) merely need to announce that Congress didn't really mean the laws they passed. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.

Orwell was right. He was merely 30-odd years early.

What is the language of this new law?

 

[Skylar]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

Gruber said that was the intent, why do you ignore that fact? You can't just keep repeating a lie, oh right, you certainly have shown that ability. It is one thing to be wrong but you have been shown the video of Gruber saying what was the intent and yet you continue on.

Gruber also said this:

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn't ready by 2014, and states hadn't set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn't get the tax credits right away. ...

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

There are few people who worked as closely with Obama administration and Congress as I did, and at no point was it ever even implied that there’d be differential tax credits based on whether the states set up their own exchange. And that was the basis of all the modeling I did, and that was the basis of any sensible analysis of this law that’s been done by any expert, left and right.

I didn’t assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsides would be conditional of who ran the exchanges.

Jonathan Gruber on Halbig Says Quote on Exchanges Was a Mistake The New Republic

And made it clear in the quote you offered that the law states that if the states don't provide it (the subsidies), the federal backstop will. But that the roll out of the federal backstop was slow.

 

[Freewill]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

NO they didn't. They voted with as much political activism and corruption as they possibly could.

Even the author of that part of SCOTUScare puts it very bluntly, and makes SCOTUS out to be the corrupt hacks that they are...

Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies



Now there is the PROOF. You want to argue against that, then you are one fucking ignorant dumbass.

'
Gruber was clear as a bell: the law says that "if the states don't provide it the federal backstop will".

Gruber pointed out that the federal backstop was slow to roll out. And without it, the citizens in states without a state exchange wouldn't get the subsidy.

The federal backstop is fully rolled out now. Thus, as Gruber says in your own video: f the states don't provide it the federal backstop will.

You are intentionally leaving out the rest of what he said, that is lying.

Here is what he said in words: Repeating what he said in 2012: "f you're a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. … I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”

The backup he is talking about is the federal exchanges that they never wanted to set up. They thought that their little wording trick would make the states fall into line. Was it their intent to deprive people of their tax credits, no, was it what was written in the law, absolutely.

Here is what he said about Federal exchanges and the roll out of the web page certainly proves they were expecting to have to provide one.

“Congress did not expect the states to turn down federal funds and fail to create and run their own Exchanges,” the petition says. "Accordingly, for example, Congress did not appropriate any funds in the ACA for HHS to build Exchanges, even as it appropriated unlimited funds to help states establish theirs...Indeed, ACA proponents emphasized that '[a]ll the health insurance exchanges … are run by states,' to rebut charges that the Act was a federal 'takeover.'"

 

[Syriusly]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

You are parroting Scalia's opinion- but the rest of the Justices do not agree.

 

[Freewill]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

You are parroting Scalia's opinion- but the rest of the Justices do not agree.

I am parroting the truth you should be able to see that. No way the liberal side was ever going to vote the other way and Roberts, he apparently likes being a dictator.

Come on, face it, when you cheat and win that just makes the victory all the more fun.

BTW I was quoting Gruber the author of the bill.

 

[Syriusly]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

You are parroting Scalia's opinion- but the rest of the Justices do not agree.

I am parroting the truth you should be able to see that. No way the liberal side was ever going to vote the other way and Roberts, he apparently likes being a dictator.

Come on, face it, when you cheat and win that just makes the victory all the more fun.

BTW I was quoting Gruber the author of the bill.

When have I cheated? Feel free to point it out- otherwise it appears that you are just recounting your own feelings.

 

[Skylar]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

NO they didn't. They voted with as much political activism and corruption as they possibly could.

Even the author of that part of SCOTUScare puts it very bluntly, and makes SCOTUS out to be the corrupt hacks that they are...

Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies



Now there is the PROOF. You want to argue against that, then you are one fucking ignorant dumbass.

'
Gruber was clear as a bell: the law says that "if the states don't provide it the federal backstop will".

Gruber pointed out that the federal backstop was slow to roll out. And without it, the citizens in states without a state exchange wouldn't get the subsidy.

The federal backstop is fully rolled out now. Thus, as Gruber says in your own video: f the states don't provide it the federal backstop will.

You are intentionally leaving out the rest of what he said, that is lying.

Here is what he said in words: Repeating what he said in 2012: "f you're a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. …

And if you look at what he said immediately before that.....you recognize that he was talking about the situation if the federal backstop didn't roll out.This from your own video:

In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits

And the Federal backstop is now rolled out. So as Gruber said "In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. "

And the federal backstop does.

I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”

Your willful ignorance of the entire context of Gruber's statement is blatant enough. But the court doesn't ignore context when coming to its decision just because you do.

 

[Freewill]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

You are parroting Scalia's opinion- but the rest of the Justices do not agree.

I am parroting the truth you should be able to see that. No way the liberal side was ever going to vote the other way and Roberts, he apparently likes being a dictator.

Come on, face it, when you cheat and win that just makes the victory all the more fun.

BTW I was quoting Gruber the author of the bill.

When have I cheated? Feel free to point it out- otherwise it appears that you are just recounting your own feelings.

I meant cheating in a general term and it was a bad choice of a word, sorry. I guess this is more like gaming the system which is what Kennedy did.

 

[paddymurphy]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

"They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do.": That is completely and utterly wrong.

"A cardinal rule of construction is that a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its various parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purposes. Justice Scalia, who has been in the vanguard of efforts to redirect statutory construction toward statutory text and away from legislative history, has aptly characterized this general approach. “Statutory construction . . . is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme — because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

 

[Freewill]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

NO they didn't. They voted with as much political activism and corruption as they possibly could.

Even the author of that part of SCOTUScare puts it very bluntly, and makes SCOTUS out to be the corrupt hacks that they are...

Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies



Now there is the PROOF. You want to argue against that, then you are one fucking ignorant dumbass.

'
Gruber was clear as a bell: the law says that "if the states don't provide it the federal backstop will".

Gruber pointed out that the federal backstop was slow to roll out. And without it, the citizens in states without a state exchange wouldn't get the subsidy.

The federal backstop is fully rolled out now. Thus, as Gruber says in your own video: f the states don't provide it the federal backstop will.

You are intentionally leaving out the rest of what he said, that is lying.

Here is what he said in words: Repeating what he said in 2012: "f you're a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. …

And if you look at what he said immediately before that.....you recognize that he was talking about the situation if the federal backstop didn't roll out.This from your own video:

In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits

And the Federal backstop is now rolled out. So as Gruber said "In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. "

And the federal backstop does.

I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”

Your willful ignorance of the entire context of Gruber's statement is blatant enough. But the court doesn't ignore context when coming to its decision just because you do.

The backstop he talks about had NOTHING to do with tax credits or subsidize the same man you quote, partially, says exactly the same thing.

You are ignoring both his written words and the video where he tells exactly what I have posted. Wow, your side gamed the system an won isn't that enough? You really are not going to get me to agree with the BS that you are trying to sell.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This decision should trouble anyone who cares about the rule of law, regardless of their ideology. This case was open and shut and lock-bang clear. The law, as the OP notes, clearly says that only states that set up exchanges will get federal subsidies. That's what it says. That provision was the carrot and the stick at the same time, and the Democrats never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. So Obama broke the law and started handing out subsidies in states with no exchanges. This illegal act was challenged. But, no worry, Roberts says the law says what he says it says, not how it reads.

 

[Syriusly]

What the court did was determine the legislative intent of the law. And there's no credible argument that congress didn't intent state residents without state exchanges to have access to the federal exchange.

I am glad you finally admit that what the SCOTUS did is beyond their authority. They are not to rule on intent but the letter of the law and that they did not do. Even at that the intent was that the states would not receive subsidizes you have been shown that fact. So the SCOTUS made law once again.

I never thought they would do otherwise but at least be honest about what happened.

You are parroting Scalia's opinion- but the rest of the Justices do not agree.

I am parroting the truth you should be able to see that. No way the liberal side was ever going to vote the other way and Roberts, he apparently likes being a dictator.

Come on, face it, when you cheat and win that just makes the victory all the more fun.

BTW I was quoting Gruber the author of the bill.

When have I cheated? Feel free to point it out- otherwise it appears that you are just recounting your own feelings.

I meant cheating in a general term and it was a bad choice of a word, sorry. I guess this is more like gaming the system which is what Kennedy did.

How did Kennedy 'game the system'?

Still waiting to see what the legislation is that the Supreme Court has written.