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

[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.

"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

Oh no doubt there is a lot of BS and what you posted doesn't not speak to what I said. What i get out of this is if the law in one place says that the sky is blue but in another says that the sky has a color one can not interpret that to mean that the sky is any color other then blue.

In this case where is the other part of the law that clarifies what the wording says and the author says was the intent of the wording? Where? The intent, in accordance with the AUTHOR, was to force states to set up exchanges, what possible language is their within the bill that changes that intent?

 

[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.

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.

Utter bullshit. Again, I offer your own video:

"Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

Jon Gruber

The subsidies for health insurance are exactly he's talking about. You're again ignoring all but one sentence in your video and then demanding we do the same.

Laughing....no. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor is the USSC obligated to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quoting what he said. All of it. You're the one has ignored all but ONE sentence, ignored all context, and everything else Gruber has said.

See above at how gloriously irrelevant your willful ignorance actually is.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Nothing new about it. Courts have been writing laws for decades as in roe v wade and plyler v doe ( which forced states to give free k-12 to illegals.}

Wrong as can be but now new.

 

[Freewill]

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.

How about if I say, legislate from the bench? So are the clear and concise words in the bill now going to be removed or simply just ignored? Gruber said what they meant and he wrote it. And again, the SCOTUS should have ruled against and made Congress fix the damn thing. They could have given congress 100 days to do it and I will bet right now with the ass kissing the Republicans are doing sending jobs overseas they would have something so simple done in 2 days. They could have also made the changes that Kennedy made when he changed the law to say tax instead of penalty.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Utter bullshit. Again, I offer your own video:

"Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

Jon Gruber

The subsidies for health insurance are exactly he's talking about. You're again ignoring all but one sentence in your video and then demanding we do the same.

Laughing....no. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor is the USSC obligated to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quoting what he said. All of it. You're the one has ignored all but ONE sentence, ignored all context, and everything else Gruber has said.

See above at how gloriously irrelevant your willful ignorance actually is.

My gosh, here it is in its entirity:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

That is exactly what is in the video, so I am ignoring NOTHING.

 

[Skylar]

How about if I say, legislate from the bench? So are the clear and concise words in the bill now going to be removed or simply just ignored? Gruber said what they meant and he wrote it.

And this is what Gruber said about the law: 'In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

You simply ignore this and then pretend it doesn't exist. But just because you pretend doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to. And the court's certainly aren't going to pretend with you.

And again, the SCOTUS should have ruled against and made Congress fix the damn thing.

The SCOTUS should have done exactly what they did: determine the legislative intent of congress.

 

[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

Oh no doubt there is a lot of BS and what you posted doesn't not speak to what I said. What i get out of this is if the law in one place says that the sky is blue but in another says that the sky has a color one can not interpret that to mean that the sky is any color other then blue.

In this case where is the other part of the law that clarifies what the wording says and the author says was the intent of the wording? Where? The intent, in accordance with the AUTHOR, was to force states to set up exchanges, what possible language is their within the bill that changes that intent?

It does speak to what you posted. You said that the intent of the legislature did not matter. It does. This statute clearly stated that exchanges could be set up by the state or, if the state did not set one up, by the federal government. The construction by those trying to derail this law made no sense because it would have made the entire thing collapse. Do you think that they wrote the law intending for it to collapse? Do you really want the judicial branch to toss out a law on the basis of an ambiguity between two parts when it is clear that the legislature intended for the subsidies to be available to all who are entitled to them?

"It is well to keep in mind, however, that the overriding objective of statutory construction is to effectuate statutory purpose. As Justice Jackson put it more than 50 years ago, “[h]owever well these rules may serve at times to decipher legislative intent, they long have been subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.”11

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

 

[Skylar]

That is exactly what is in the video, so I am ignoring NOTHING.

The parts you're ignoring is everything Gruber said BEFORE the one setence you'll knowledge. You insist that when Gruber said ' In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will." that he wasn't referring to subidies for health insurance. But as your own quote demonstrates, subsidies for health insurance were exactly what he was talking about.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will.

There it is, from your own video. He's talking about subsides for health insurance and indicates the law says that if the States don't provide it, the federal backstop will.

The Federal backstop has rolled out. And if the state doesn't provide it, the federal backstop will.

Exactly as Gruber said.

 

[paddymurphy]

'
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.

Utter bullshit. Again, I offer your own video:

"Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

Jon Gruber

The subsidies for health insurance are exactly he's talking about. You're again ignoring all but one sentence in your video and then demanding we do the same.

Laughing....no. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor is the USSC obligated to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quoting what he said. All of it. You're the one has ignored all but ONE sentence, ignored all context, and everything else Gruber has said.

See above at how gloriously irrelevant your willful ignorance actually is.

My gosh, here it is in its entirity:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

That is exactly what is in the video, so I am ignoring NOTHING.

Gruber was not a legislator and did not work for Congress. His opinions are just that: his opinions. The legislators that passed the law did not intend that state exchanges set up by the federal government would not be able to provide subsidies.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Utter bullshit. Again, I offer your own video:

"Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

Jon Gruber

The subsidies for health insurance are exactly he's talking about. You're again ignoring all but one sentence in your video and then demanding we do the same.

Laughing....no. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor is the USSC obligated to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quoting what he said. All of it. You're the one has ignored all but ONE sentence, ignored all context, and everything else Gruber has said.

See above at how gloriously irrelevant your willful ignorance actually is.

My gosh, here it is in its entirity:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

That is exactly what is in the video, so I am ignoring NOTHING.

Gruber was not a legislator and did not work for Congress. His opinions are just that: his opinions. The legislators that passed the law did not intend that state exchanges set up by the federal government would not be able to provide subsidies.

He wrote the f...ing law who better knows the intent? Those democrats in congress that could not have possibly have read the damn thing? You are grasping at straws. You don't know there intent any more then they probably knew. THAT is why it should have been sent back to congress for clarification. Why do you and others have so much trouble with the people's representatives writing law and not 9 old men and women?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

.

Yup - the law was written just as democrats wanted it. The states simply haven't responded in the way democrats expected. Even with the incentive the states chose to not set up exchanges. So obozo told the court to rewrite the law!!!

 

[Skylar]

He wrote the f...ing law who better knows the intent?

Then why are you ignoring this statement from Gruber:

"In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."[/QUOTE]

 

[paddymurphy]

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:

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.

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.

Utter bullshit. Again, I offer your own video:

"Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

Jon Gruber

The subsidies for health insurance are exactly he's talking about. You're again ignoring all but one sentence in your video and then demanding we do the same.

Laughing....no. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor is the USSC obligated to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quoting what he said. All of it. You're the one has ignored all but ONE sentence, ignored all context, and everything else Gruber has said.

See above at how gloriously irrelevant your willful ignorance actually is.

My gosh, here it is in its entirity:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

That is exactly what is in the video, so I am ignoring NOTHING.

Gruber was not a legislator and did not work for Congress. His opinions are just that: his opinions. The legislators that passed the law did not intend that state exchanges set up by the federal government would not be able to provide subsidies.

He wrote the f...ing law who better knows the intent? Those democrats in congress that could not have possibly have read the damn thing? You are grasping at straws. You don't know there intent any more then they probably knew. THAT is why it should have been sent back to congress for clarification. Why do you and others have so much trouble with the people's representatives writing law and not 9 old men and women?

He did not write the fucking law. He and many other contributed to it. He, personally, did not write a single word of the law. He provided economic models to explain what would happen. He is not an attorney and had no role in writing the language the Court ruled on today. You assholes have tried every means to overturn the will of the people represented by this law. This latest was a shameless attempt based not on the merits of the law or any constitutional issue but based on taking three words out of the context of the 2000 page statute. You lost. Shut up about it already.

 

[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.

"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

Oh no doubt there is a lot of BS and what you posted doesn't not speak to what I said. What i get out of this is if the law in one place says that the sky is blue but in another says that the sky has a color one can not interpret that to mean that the sky is any color other then blue.

In this case where is the other part of the law that clarifies what the wording says and the author says was the intent of the wording? Where? The intent, in accordance with the AUTHOR, was to force states to set up exchanges, what possible language is their within the bill that changes that intent?

It does speak to what you posted. You said that the intent of the legislature did not matter. It does. This statute clearly stated that exchanges could be set up by the state or, if the state did not set one up, by the federal government. The construction by those trying to derail this law made no sense because it would have made the entire thing collapse. Do you think that they wrote the law intending for it to collapse? Do you really want the judicial branch to toss out a law on the basis of an ambiguity between two parts when it is clear that the legislature intended for the subsidies to be available to all who are entitled to them?

"It is well to keep in mind, however, that the overriding objective of statutory construction is to effectuate statutory purpose. As Justice Jackson put it more than 50 years ago, “[h]owever well these rules may serve at times to decipher legislative intent, they long have been subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.”11

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

You like skyler are confusing two issues which Gruber did address. First, there is no question that the law clearly states that if the states do not set up exchanges then the backstop is the federal government exchanges, no argument there. The other issue is the tax credits or subsidizes. Gruber, and the laws, states that if the states do not set up exchanges then they will not receive the tax credits. It is right their in his testimony.

So YES the federal government is a backstop to the state exchanges.

And YES the law was written to withhold tax credits if the state did not form exchanges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Writing new laws from the bench is what SCOTUS refused to do.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Utter bullshit. Again, I offer your own video:

"Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

Jon Gruber

The subsidies for health insurance are exactly he's talking about. You're again ignoring all but one sentence in your video and then demanding we do the same.

Laughing....no. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Nor is the USSC obligated to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quoting what he said. All of it. You're the one has ignored all but ONE sentence, ignored all context, and everything else Gruber has said.

See above at how gloriously irrelevant your willful ignorance actually is.

My gosh, here it is in its entirity:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

That is exactly what is in the video, so I am ignoring NOTHING.

Gruber was not a legislator and did not work for Congress. His opinions are just that: his opinions. The legislators that passed the law did not intend that state exchanges set up by the federal government would not be able to provide subsidies.

He wrote the f...ing law who better knows the intent? Those democrats in congress that could not have possibly have read the damn thing? You are grasping at straws. You don't know there intent any more then they probably knew. THAT is why it should have been sent back to congress for clarification. Why do you and others have so much trouble with the people's representatives writing law and not 9 old men and women?

He did not write the fucking law. He and many other contributed to it. He, personally, did not write a single word of the law. He provided economic models to explain what would happen. He is not an attorney and had no role in writing the language the Court ruled on today. You assholes have tried every means to overturn the will of the people represented by this law. This latest was a shameless attempt based not on the merits of the law or any constitutional issue but based on taking three words out of the context of the 2000 page statute. You lost. Shut up about it already.

It wasn't my will and by all polls it was not the will of the people.

Care to tell me why he was called to testify in the trial on the very subject if he didn't know what he was talking about? Care to cite what part of the law to which you refer? Care to post any fact that is backed by anything other then your unsubstantiated diatribe?

 

[bendog]

Here is the story some say is the most comprehensive single piece of the drafting error.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/u...-been-left-by-mistake.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

At the end it includes this:

"A powerful line of judicial thinking holds that courts do not have a license to disregard or revise the clear language of a law."

Taken by itself, that is correct. However, when the clear language of the law operates to achieve an illogical interpretation of what the law (or a contract) undisputedly set out to accomplish, the language cannot be clear, and court's have to interpret what was meant. This just isn't as earthshaking as some like to put it. Or as a law professor I know said to his students, "I've seen constitutional crises, lived through them, but Obamacare isn't one."

 

[Freewill]

He wrote the f...ing law who better knows the intent?

Then why are you ignoring this statement from Gruber:

"In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

[/QUOTE]

I not once ignored that statement. The backstop is to the state exchanges if the state does not set them up. The tax credit is the carrot to try and force them to do so. So why do you ignore this statement: "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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this."

 

[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

Oh no doubt there is a lot of BS and what you posted doesn't not speak to what I said. What i get out of this is if the law in one place says that the sky is blue but in another says that the sky has a color one can not interpret that to mean that the sky is any color other then blue.

In this case where is the other part of the law that clarifies what the wording says and the author says was the intent of the wording? Where? The intent, in accordance with the AUTHOR, was to force states to set up exchanges, what possible language is their within the bill that changes that intent?

It does speak to what you posted. You said that the intent of the legislature did not matter. It does. This statute clearly stated that exchanges could be set up by the state or, if the state did not set one up, by the federal government. The construction by those trying to derail this law made no sense because it would have made the entire thing collapse. Do you think that they wrote the law intending for it to collapse? Do you really want the judicial branch to toss out a law on the basis of an ambiguity between two parts when it is clear that the legislature intended for the subsidies to be available to all who are entitled to them?

"It is well to keep in mind, however, that the overriding objective of statutory construction is to effectuate statutory purpose. As Justice Jackson put it more than 50 years ago, “[h]owever well these rules may serve at times to decipher legislative intent, they long have been subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.”11

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

You like skyler are confusing two issues which Gruber did address. First, there is no question that the law clearly states that if the states do not set up exchanges then the backstop is the federal government exchanges, no argument there. The other issue is the tax credits or subsidizes. Gruber, and the laws, states that if the states do not set up exchanges then they will not receive the tax credits. It is right their in his testimony.

So YES the federal government is a backstop to the state exchanges.

And YES the law was written to withhold tax credits if the state did not form exchanges.

I am confusing nothing. I read the statute's provisions at issue in this case. I read the opinions of the lower Court and of the Supreme Court. They got it absolutely correct. Are you suggesting that you understand the principles of law that the Court applied here better than the 6 justices and several lower Court judges who decided this. What law school did you attend? How many cases have you briefed where statutory construction was the issue being argued? Did you see in the Supreme Court opinion where they considered what an economic consultant who worked on the reform for the white house had to say about the law? No, you did not cause what he said was utterly irrelevant to what the Court had to decide. The position you take is absurd. It would require the belief that Congress intended to create a law that is internally inconsistent and doomed to failure. How about you clowns debate the law on its merits and try to convince the American people to repeal it. Win an election and you might get to do that. Wanting un-elected judges to substitute their judgment for that of elected representatives is decidedly un-American.

 

[bendog]

He wrote the f...ing law who better knows the intent?

Then why are you ignoring this statement from Gruber:

"In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will."

I not once ignored that statement. The backstop is to the state exchanges if the state does not set them up. The tax credit is the carrot to try and force them to do so. So why do you ignore this statement: "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. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. 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. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this."[/QUOTE]
Gruber told The New Republic that he had made a mistake.

“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it,” Gruber told The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn. “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.”
Adviser s past remarks could give Obamacare a headache MSNBC