Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Because bypassing separation of powers to "fix" a sloppy law (so affordable, it's mandatory!) is absolutely cause for celebration.

Founding principles?

What bypassing of separation of powers? What does that even mean?

[OldDog]

O. M. G.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

O. M. G.

That's your answer?
You do realize that the repubs are actually relieved at the ruling, because they won't have people asking their ten thousand candidates for president how they're going to fix a mess that won't occur?
And just because you do not like a ruling doesn't mean the system of checks and balances no longer applies.
Perhaps, instead of hyperbolic phrases that say nothing, you can explain how the ruling is incorrect and at odds with the constitution? On what basis should they have ruled in the opppsite?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What bypassing of separation of powers? What does that even mean?

You do know that the Republic we used to have prior to today actually divided the powers of government, right?

Enumerated powers, checks and balances, all that stuff we had before political correctness and a 98% liberal press. Coincides with the time when America used to build things.

No, unfortunately, to address this to Ben Franklin, we couldn't keep the Republic.

Scalia's anger was quite justified. He is correct. We are now in a post-Constitutional America. And that should scare everybody. The words mean nothing. The Constitution has been shredded and now it's only the whims of one executive that drives all. Freedom is fading.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You do know that the Republic we used to have prior to today actually divided the powers of government, right?

Enumerated powers, checks and balances, all that stuff we had before political correctness and a 98% liberal press. Coincides with the time when America used to build things.

No, unfortunately, to address this to Ben Franklin, we couldn't keep the Republic.

Scalia's anger was quite justified. He is correct. We are now in a post-Constitutional America. And that should scare everybody. The words mean nothing. The Constitution has been shredded and now it's only the whims of one executive that drives all. Freedom is fading.

Thanks for the laugh.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Thanks for the laugh.

Laugh it up, this is still the "soft tyranny" phase. The more classic tyrannical stuff comes later.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Laugh it up, this is still the "soft tyranny" phase. The more classic tyrannical stuff comes later.

I'm guessing we heard pretty much the same gloom and doom following such "abuse of power" as "Brown v Board of Education" and "Roe v Wade" and I expect conservative's heads will explode if the Court rules in favor of gay marriage. Somehow I think the country will survive...maybe the Republicans can try impeachment again, that worked so well.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I'm guessing we heard pretty much the same gloom and doom following such "abuse of power" as "Brown v Board of Education" and "Roe v Wade" and I expect conservative's heads will explode if the Court rules in favor of gay marriage. Somehow I think the country will survive...maybe the Republicans can try impeachment again, that worked so well.

of course they did.
now, if you'll excuse me, i have to go find my umbrella. it seems the sky is falling.

[steve]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Laugh it up, this is still the "soft tyranny" phase. The more classic tyrannical stuff comes later.

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by steve

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by steve

sorta like lying to get us in a endless war with Iraq?

...Post of the month..

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Thanks for the laugh.

This is how you respond to joeydb, and yet somehow my O. M. G. reply to your not being familiar with the concept of separation of powers is inadequate?

Separation of powers, or checks and balances, were designed to prevent government from wielding uninhibited power. Progs, understandably, have never been fond of the concept which is why they are always claiming that the Constitution is a "living document" whose principles can be changed to suit their whims. In this instance, scotus has decided that it is its function is to make a law work, not because of how it was written, but in spite of how it was written, simply because they want it to work. They decided that in the case of the ACA, "[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan," and since the ACA desires "to improve health insurance markets," if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes it means in order to make it work, despite of its troubled legislative history (as in relying on the public's ignorance). This is known as judicial activism, or legislating from the bench. It's not as if it's never happened before, but I expect that this example of it, in such sweeping legislation, means that we can expect to see more in the future.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

This is how you respond to joeydb, and yet somehow my O. M. G. reply to your not being familiar with the concept of separation of powers is inadequate?

Separation of powers, or checks and balances, were designed to prevent government from wielding uninhibited power. Progs, understandably, have never been fond of the concept which is why they are always claiming that the Constitution is a "living document" whose principles can be changed to suit their whims. In this instance, scotus has decided that it is its function is to make a law work, not because of how it was written, but in spite of how it was written, simply because they want it to work. They decided that in the case of the ACA, "[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan," and since the ACA desires "to improve health insurance markets," if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes it means in order to make it work, despite of its troubled legislative history (as in relying on the public's ignorance). This is known as judicial activism, or legislating from the bench. It's not as if it's never happened before, but I expect that this example of it, in such sweeping legislation, means that we can expect to see more in the future.

again, i know how it works.
i hope you read the article i posted, explaining some of what the justices considered.
but you probably didn't.
again, not liking the ruling doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or that our system is broken.
when the scotus ruled on corporate free speech, and on hobby lobby, i disagreed with their decision. i didn't bemoan legislating from the bench.

[Danzig]

let's look at it this way:

who wrote the law, discussed the law, amended the law, voted on the law, passed the law?
congress.
who enacted the law, set up the mechanisms for the law? congress

who can change the law, repeal the law? congress.

what did scotus do? uphold the law. so, therefore, ignoring all that congress did, scotus is legislating from the bench?

hogwash

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

let's look at it this way:

who wrote the law, discussed the law, amended the law, voted on the law, passed the law?

Democrats.

Originally Posted by Danzig

who enacted the law, set up the mechanisms for the law?

Democrats.

Originally Posted by Danzig

who can change the law, repeal the law?

Republicans, if they can find a better way (and their balls).

Originally Posted by Danzig

what did scotus do?

Re-wrote the law.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, i know how it works.

I don't believe you do.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i hope you read the article i posted, explaining some of what the justices considered.
but you probably didn't.

Yes, it laid out the majority's decision well. If the legislature passes a law that we favor but is unconstitutional, well then by golly let's reinterpret it (in spite of how it was written) and make it constitutional.

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, not liking the ruling doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or that our system is broken.

You seem to be under the impression that my distaste for the scotus' ruling is that it didn't overturn the ACA, when my far and away larger disappointment is that judges are acting as unelected legislators. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you.

Originally Posted by Danzig

when the scotus ruled on corporate free speech, and on hobby lobby, i disagreed with their decision. i didn't bemoan legislating from the bench.

Perhaps that's because they didn't.

Now, I have a show to listen to.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You do know that the Republic we used to have prior to today actually divided the powers of government, right?

Enumerated powers, checks and balances, all that stuff we had before political correctness and a 98% liberal press. Coincides with the time when America used to build things.

No, unfortunately, to address this to Ben Franklin, we couldn't keep the Republic.

Scalia's anger was quite justified. He is correct. We are now in a post-Constitutional America. And that should scare everybody. The words mean nothing. The Constitution has been shredded and now it's only the whims of one executive that drives all. Freedom is fading.

It's sad that so many understand so little about how government was supposed to function. But hey, it was established by angry old white slaveowners so who cares? Now give me my free stuff.

The SC could have acted as though they understood their job, and told one party of the legislative branch that when they ram through major legislation with no support from across the aisle (or from the majority of the public for that matter), and that they haven't read and don't understand, they will have to live with their mistakes. Instead, they became unelected legislators, rewriting key provisions of law based upon perceived intent, and let's be honest, political consequences.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

It's sad that so many understand so little about how government was supposed to function. But hey, it was established by angry old white slaveowners so who cares? Now give me my free stuff.

The SC could have acted as though they understood their job, and told one party of the legislative branch that when they ram through major legislation with no support from across the aisle (or from the majority of the public for that matter), and that they haven't read and don't understand, they will have to live with their mistakes. Instead, they became unelected legislators, rewriting key provisions of law based upon perceived intent, and let's be honest, political consequences.

i understand it perfectly.

back to the topic. how was the ruling incorrect? as for the legislation, it was passed, legally, by both houses of congress. you know, the ones who wrote the law, and discussed it? or are you suggesting it was passed as a 'gotcha', so they could then crush it in the scotus?

by the way, here's a great article about the arguments in the case:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...after_all.html

"But he seemed quite taken with a backup federalist argument made in numerous friend-of-the-court briefs. This argument stated that the law must be read to permit subsidies in states with no exchanges, because otherwise it would be unconstitutional. If the law forced states to set up exchanges before they received subsidies, Congress would be coercing a state to either create an exchange or risk sending its insurance market into a death spiral. And coercion this extreme violates the federalist principles enshrined in the Constitution."