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

[Uncensored2008]

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

Of course you are; you're a leftist and yearn for dictatorship.

The rule of man is as old as the species, the tribal chief who dictated to the tribe what would or would not be, to medieval kings and Communist premiers. The rule of man is the primitive method of rule.

During the golden age of Rome, the concept of the rule of law was perfected. This concept that law would be codified into written form where all could review it, with all free men equally subject to the written law was one of the great advancements of human society. This rule of law is the basis of liberty - that men are responsible to codes duly legislated rather than the capricious whims of a ruler.

This nation was founded on the supremacy of law, yet the left has never been comfortable with law - seeking to have a ruler take the burden of responsibility from them. The dishonorable John Roberts declared that we a not a nation of laws by declaring that the language of the law is irrelevant - that what a law says is not important, only the social aims of the ruling party matter. Once again thrusting humanity under the capricious whims of rulers.

What Roberts did is far larger than the ACA - he dismantled the concept of law are arbiter of society - setting himself as arbiter in it's stead.

 

[Skylar]

You can't penetrate that mindset with reason or evidence. But you can point and laugh at it.

Indeed. Laughing at reason and evidence is a Democrat specialty.

Reason and evidence have nothing to do with your argument. As you're literally ignoring the legislators on the legislative intent of the bill.

That's just silly. And worthy of a little laughter.

 

[Skylar]

I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.

Of course you are; you're a leftist and yearn for dictatorship.

Nope. I yearn for the court to follow the legislative intent of a given law. All the 'dictatorship' batshit I leave to you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
You can find plenty that state that it wasn't their intent. Which is exactly what the court found.

Our dishonorable Humpty Dumpty Court stated it as such;

'When I use a word,' John Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said John Roberts, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

 

[Skylar]

[
You can find plenty that state that it wasn't their intent. Which is exactly what the court found.

Our dishonorable Humpty Dumpty Court stated it as such;

'When I use a word,' John Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said John Roberts, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

I'm pretty sure you're hallucinating all of that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope. I yearn for the court to follow the legislative intent of a given law. All the 'dictatorship' batshit I leave to you.

When the court will not follow the language of the law, then law is irrelevant and only the dictate of the court rules over men. You are a leftist - you work to establish dictatorship, so naturally this is what you prefer.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. I yearn for the court to follow the legislative intent of a given law. All the 'dictatorship' batshit I leave to you.

When the court will not follow the language of the law, then law is irrelevant and only the dictate of the court rules over men.

The court followed what the legislators intended. According to who? According to the legislators.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm pretty sure you're hallucinating all of that.

I'm pretty sure you are quite uneducated.

 

[Skylar]

I'm pretty sure you're hallucinating all of that.

I'm pretty sure you are quite uneducated.

I'm educated enough to listen to the legislators on what they intended their law to say. Rather than quoting a child's book as the USSC ruling.

And so are the USSC justices by a ratio of 2 to 1.

 

[bendog]

I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill

Of course not. They're all Democrats.

No, Billy, they are not all democrats.

What Republican voted for Obamacare?

Snowe for one said the federal exchange was intended to have the subsidies. And republican staffers who were in on reading and forwarding the drafts said the same. I'm not doing research for you.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill

Of course not. They're all Democrats.

No, Billy, they are not all democrats.

What Republican voted for Obamacare?

Snowe for one said the federal exchange was intended to have the subsidies. And republican staffers who were in on reading and forwarding the drafts said the same. I'm not doing research for you.

Did she vote for it? If not, my point is made.

 

[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 and unapologetic 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 has 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. In fact, they have explicitly said that. Despite numerous congressmen who passed them, saying they certainly did.

Orwell was right. He merely got the date wrong, naming one 30-odd years early.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Says you. And the senators and congressmen who have stated that there was no intent to deny state citizens access to the federal exchanges include REPUBLICANS.

You insist its all one grand conspiracy. The court didn't buy your bullshit. Nor should they have. As the legislative intent of the bill was obvious.

Does Soros actually pay you to spread propaganda?

You have never read the bill, and at 20,202 pages in length - nothing is "clear" in it. You are simply a hack spewing the shit your masters tell you to spew. The ACA is bad law, to salvage it - the dishonorable Roberts undermined the essential rule of law. The ACA is a much smaller issue than Roberts nullification of law as the foundation for the republic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The court followed what the legislators intended. According to who? According to the legislators.

The court openly scoffed at the written statutes, in direct violation of the Constitutions. This is a scofflaw court that has gravely damaged the concept of law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm educated enough to listen to the legislators on what they intended their law to say. Rather than quoting a child's book as the USSC ruling.

And so are the USSC justices by a ratio of 2 to 1.

The only thing you listen to are the Soros hate sites.

 

[bendog]

I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill

Of course not. They're all Democrats.

No, Billy, they are not all democrats.

What Republican voted for Obamacare?

Snowe for one said the federal exchange was intended to have the subsidies. And republican staffers who were in on reading and forwarding the drafts said the same. I'm not doing research for you.

Did she vote for it? If not, my point is made.

Well, I believe your point was gopers did not support the SC's finding that the law was intended to have subsidies available through the federal exchange, which is bullshite. But if I misunderstood you, I apologize

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perhaps the problem is that people, their ideas, values and so forth change over the years, and the Court may feel compelled to accept those changes. To change the Constitution does not work, it is too difficult to amend, so the Court makes decisions that may bend the Constitution

Unconstitutional.

Not at all.

 

[Silhouette]

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. Only Congress could add a fundamental change like "some behaviors the majority objects to now get special protection from democratic rule". That is fundamental change and brand spanking new...and unworkable legally..

 

[JakeStarkey]

I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill

Of course not. They're all Democrats.

No, Billy, they are not all democrats.

What Republican voted for Obamacare?

Snowe for one said the federal exchange was intended to have the subsidies. And republican staffers who were in on reading and forwarding the drafts said the same. I'm not doing research for you.

Did she vote for it? If not, my point is made.

Um . . . the point is that you have no feasible point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Court rule in the traditional conservative way: legislative intent is the domain of Congress. Let it fix its error.