Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Supreme Court justices aren't judges. They're politicians !

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Supreme Court justices aren't judges. They're politicians !

    The ObamaCare law specifically said that federal subsidies would flow on exchanges established by states. It didn't say anything about subsidies flowing to exchanges established by the federal government. Whether by design (to induce the states to set up exchanges, as ObamaCare architect John Gruber said) or because of a simple oversight (as many liberals argued), that's what the law said.

    ObamaCare's architects did not anticipate the scale of the popular and political blowback against ObamaCare, and thus didn't anticipate that so many states would refuse to set up exchanges. As a result, they didn't anticipate that so many uninsured people in so many states might have to rely on exchanges set up by the federal government. That's a serious issue.

    But there's an even more serious issue here, and it's about the "rule of law" (which is not a sinister conservative invention). The entire point of having a republic, as opposed to a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, is that the nation is ruled by laws that are uniformly applied, and not based on the whims of individuals. This is true even — especially, perhaps — when the whims of individuals would make lots of people better off. An enlightened despot might be able to do a lot of very good things, but it is still better to live in a republic under the rule of law. (Or at least, that's what so many in the West have believed for centuries.)

    That's what "the rule of law" means. It means that what the law says is what is applied. Even when it's annoying. Even when it's frustrating. Even when lives are at stake!

    Montesquieu, one of the greatest political philosophers of the Enlightenment and one of the chief inspirations of the Founding Fathers of the United States, put it best when he said that judges should be "the mouth of the law." Judges should not do what, in their opinion, they think is best. They should simply apply the text of the law. (And, by the way, while this solution does not make every single case easy to adjudicate, it sure makes a lot more cases easy to adjudicate than any alternative interpretation of what judges should do.) It's a matter of principle — that rule of law thing, again — but it's also what's best in the long run. It means everyone has a reasonable idea of what the law is and how disputes are going to shake out; it creates an incentive for legislatures and the body politic to do their job right, since judges won't be there to fix their mistakes for them.

    So, do words have meaning?

    Not when I don't feel like it, is pretty much the answer of the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts.

    King v. Burwell changed the meaning of the Affordable Care Act, from what it said to something else that would avoid disruption to ObamaCare. This is a disastrous result for the rule of law, on which our constitutional and political order is built.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  2. #2
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    The ObamaCare law specifically said that federal subsidies would flow on exchanges established by states. It didn't say anything about subsidies flowing to exchanges established by the federal government. [/U]

    Fortunately the majority of Supreme Court Judges who decided this case were not as mentally challenged as you. When you see a sign that says "Fine for Littering" do you think it means "its OK to litter here" instead of realizing that is part of a larger set of laws that prohibit littering?

    Oh, and Robert's bitched slapped Scalia with Scalia's oqwn words from the earlier Obamacare opinion - in which Scalia claimed the law allowed the federal government to do exactly what he claimed they could not do now. So Scalia's "meaning of words" is like Humpty Dumpy - only in Scalia's world words mean exactly whatever he wants them to mean whenever he wants them to mean what he wants.

    It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) (slip op., at 60) (“Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”). Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation. But those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and the tax credits. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well."
    Last edited by nogods; July 1st, 2015 at 08:03 AM.

  3. #3
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    8,222
    Whine, whine, whine.

    Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Righties don't like, they start squealing like stuck pigs about how "political" the Court is. In both the ACA case and the marriage equality case, the minority opinions are just so lame that it's very clear who the politicized justices really are: Scalia and Thomas.
    Your right to buy a military weapon without hindrance, delay or training cannot trump Daniel Barden’s right to see his eighth birthday. -- Jim Himes

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda_D View Post
    Whine, whine, whine.

    Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Righties don't like, they start squealing like stuck pigs about how "political" the Court is. In both the ACA case and the marriage equality case, the minority opinions are just so lame that it's very clear who the politicized justices really are: Scalia and Thomas.
    We have heard nothing but crying from lefties about the rightwing Supreme Court since the appointment of Roberts. Now you're magically going to pretend its been the right wingers that were doing the whining?
    Do you ever get anything right?

    People whine about any decision they don't like, whether they're lefties or righties.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •