If the chief justice wants to write law, let him run for congress. His job is to call the balls and strikes, nothing more.
United Socialists Supreme Court were instrumental in birthing baby TOTALITARIAN. It’s the crown jewel of the Roberts court.
Checks on the citizens, balances for US (United Socialists).
Whistling in the dark...by those desiring the Justices to be progressive legislators.
Roberts is not a conserative. He is a statist Traitor.
New Flash Abigail! It is unconstitutional and your crap article, expressing your feeeeeeeelllllllllings won't change that fact.
But ... I feel that ... if 0bama and Pelosi authored it, it has to be constitutional.
That article is a bunch of bovine excrement. Interpreting the words according to their clear meaning will not render the law unconstitutional, but will simply render the subsidies illegal. Congress constantly puts guns to the heads of the 50 states to encourage and discourage behavior. What immediately comes to mind is withholding of highway funds if states don’t adopt federal drunk driving standards. If that is Constitutional why can’t Congress also deny subsidies to people in states which do not play ball with Obamacare in order to encourage them to play ball?
The problem with this argument are the multiple credible sources (Gruber, Franks) who have stated that the bill was deliberately written that way to prod states into establishing there own exchanges.
So the whole presumption that Congress wouldn’t write an unconstitutional law goes out the window.
Beyond that, there’s also the “so what?” factor to this argument. The case before the Court isn’t a Constitutional one, it’s whether the law, as written, really says what it says. The Constitutional issue raised by this argument simply isn’t germane to the case, meaning that the Justices would only consider it from a political perspective.
“Congress can’t hold a gun to states’ heads in order to force them to implement federal policies.”
She must live under a rock.
If laws don’t mean what they say, then why do we have laws?
If laws don’t mean what they say, then I can do anything I want.
This is a smokescreen. The USSC will rule in favor of Obamacare because they will be told to do so.
They will uphold it due to quaking fear of media headlines blaming them for every poor sucker in South Succotash who loses his subsidized coverage and then gets sick.
” But some conservatives on the bench, notably Chief Justice John Roberts, are also dedicated to a different and sometimes-contradictory principle: that they should not assume that Congress wrote an unconstitutional statute.”
Such an argument precisely contradicts what the Constitution actually says:
“U.S. Constitution Article III, Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;....”
Note how the Constitution says “The judicial Power shall extend to “all Cases” and not “all Cases except those in which it is alleged the Congress enacted an unconstitutional Law.”
The Supremes will rule in favor because whatever Obama had on Roberts, he still has on Roberts.
So the threat of the withholding of Federal Dollars for Highways if a 70 mile an hour limit was not imposed was not a gun, but a mere suggestion.Does anyone believe this rubbish.
Because the unprincipled, anti-constitutional wimp Roberts is afraid that the court might be seen as “political”, so he’ll bend over backwards to sustain Obamacare, no matter how he has to contort it to do so. He’s already proven that.
Referring to the original decision to allow O’care to stand, Roberts said, and I am paraphrasing, that the law was constitutional. He also said that it was not the job of the court to protect the people from the effect of legally enacted laws. In other words, if the people we elected to speak for us produced stupid legislation then we are just stuck with it until someone else passes another law to counter it. Using this same logic I don’t see any way he can rule against the plaintiffs. Though the law was poorly written and passed in the dark of night by a group of people who never read it, it was passed as written. The clause was clear as to whom the subsidies applied. Anyone who votes in support of the government’s case should be a candidate for impeachment on the grounds of incompetence as well as malfeasance.
Not that anyone up there gives a damn what I think.
I fully expect the US Supreme Court to continue to pass along the marxist/progressive agenda without regard to the Constitution and wishes of the American people and their lawfully elected representatives.
I know I’m in the minority here, but I would bet the farm that this one will come down in favor of the petitioners.
