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

[JakeStarkey]

The Cult of Silhouette's chief priest is raving above.

 

[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.

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.

At this time is anyone going to bring up the brand new language SCOTUS just added to the Constitution that just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors now get to skirt regulation by the majority? Ill-conceived redaction of the Constitution is not allowed by the Court.

But who says there was redaction? That would be you citing yourself. Which as we've long established is a meaningless source. As you don't know what you're talking about.

Meanwhile interpretting the law is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do, including its intent:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Federalist Paper 78

The intent of the legislation is absolutely something the court should follow. And what the court did follow by a ratio of 2 to 1.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil will cite herself as readily as Keys.

Hoots.

 

[Skylar]

Sil will cite herself as readily as Keys.

Hoots.

True. But at least Sil doesn't cite herself as God, Nature and the dictionary.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Silhouette]

Sil will cite herself as readily as Keys.

Hoots.

Actually, I wasn't one of the founding fathers who insisted that Congress be the only branch of government that could substantively change the Constitution. That was someone else.

Why do just some behaviors, the Court's favorites, get special protections (a new addition to the Constitution) while say, polygamy and incest (bulimia, drug addiction, other compulsive behaviors that are sure they're "born that way") don't? At least polygamy and incest provide both a father and mother to the kids involved in marriage..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, ask a question that makes sense, and you will get a sensible answer.

Keep up with the drivel, and we will keep pouring it on your head.

Oh, that founding father lost the debate you know.

 

[JBvM]

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.

Roberts did not re-write any law

and we thought it was the liberals and the left who didn't like Roberts? LOL
Emails from the leftwing groups, attacking Judge Roberts

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

Well then he did a piss poor job of writing it into the law, because that's now how it was interpretted. But nice try,

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Roberts did not re-write any law

and we thought it was the liberals and the left who didn't like Roberts? LOL
Emails from the leftwing groups, attacking Judge Roberts

Roberts is a lefty, like all lefties all he cared about is power. By becoming the "swing vote," he becomes supreme dictator and his word is law. The other 8 dictators cancel each other out, and he becomes the one who makes all laws.