Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[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.

[Danzig]

Based on what is aca unconstitutional? You've said it is, but what makes it so? Based on what should the scotus have tossed it? And scotus didn't rewrite a thing.

[Danzig]

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

[Pants II]

This is a great week for tyranny.

"I'm scared, lol repubs cry harder."

We're all gonna be crying sooner or later. Especially the plebs who trust their government and defend it to the max.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, here we go...worrying about people posting often.
yeah, when time is slow at times i can get on here.

Okay, but perhaps you can understand how setting arbitrary time limits for responses is unrealistic for some of us:

Originally Posted by Danzig

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

By that standard, you've had 10 days to tell us which Republicans in the huffpo article "tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims," as the article put it. No matter. That was then. This is now. I read your article. Here's one for you.

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

[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.