FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 07/25/2014 4:05:33 AM PDT by SteveH
...
Certainly, Roberts zealously guards the court’s institutional standing against accusations of overreaching. But only to a point. The Voting Rights Act offers an example. In 2009, Roberts, as with the Affordable Care Act, demonstrated his willingness to stretch the language of the statute to save it — temporarily. Four years later, he wrote the majority ruling striking down the law’s key provision.
Importantly, Roberts’s initial restraint in that case, as in his ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, was based on constitutional considerations: the long-standing principle that the court, if possible, should avoid overturning the work of a co-equal branch of government.
In the looming case about federal subsidies, which involves statutory interpretation (actually, whether the court should accept a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute), Roberts may be inclined to a less deferential stance.
Indeed, the two D.C. Circuit judges who invalidated the subsidies — Thomas Griffith and Raymond Randolph — cast their decision in terms of the “legislative supremacy” of Congress and the need for judges to respect statutory language, not to substitute their own surmise about what Congress intended.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Good analysis. I agree.
You have to ask the right question to get the right answer.
Exactly how is that a constitutional consideration, especially one that overrides the text and intent of the Constitution itself, pray tell?
The Washington Post and the Left need a refresher remedial course in basic Constitutional structure of the checks (as in "checking the other branches' overreach", etc.) and balances of governmental power. I'm not sure what Roberts needs.
Sounds like they're at least addressing the separation of powers issue here from an administration that seems to have completely abandoned the notion. (I know Obama personally despises the constitutional dissipation of government power and he's taking his administration down that road as quickly as he can. There's no "lame duck" as far as Obama is concerned.)
When the black-robed elites ruled Obamacare was a tax, they should have also ruled it unconstitutional as it did not originate in the House of Representatives
I am sick of all the establishment folks trying to put lipstick on John Roberts’ totalitarian destruction of liberty. The judicial branch does not “respect” the legislative branch by covering up for its abuses by rewriting legislation to give it a false semblance of legitimacy.
Why not just ask Roberts if he stopped beating his wife yet so when he refuses to answer an absurd question you can say "ah ha! he beats his wife!" Same effect.
Finally!!!! Absolutely correct. I've lost count of how many times I've seen that basic FACT posted here on FR at the time the USSC was debating Obamacare.
I’ll vouch for him.
I dug them up and relocated ‘em.
Can’t quite recall where though...
The potential for a legal pinball effect at the appellate level is to be expected from a poorly written omnibus law.
It would be interesting to learn whether it would be possible at this point for the USSC to consolidate Halbig, Sissel and King into one case, and then be in a position dispense with ObamaCare altogether on origination clause grounds instead of jerking everyone around which seems to be the current default direction if nothing visionary is done about it.
“...based on constitutional considerations: the long-standing principle that the court, if possible, should avoid overturning the work of a co-equal branch of government...”
**************************************************************************************
...but allow an agency of the executive branch (i.e., the IRS using its regulatory regime) to change, however and whenever it suits the Regime’s purposes, laws as they were when passed by Congress and signed by the President?
The Republic and our Constitution are rapidly being eroded by progressive statists.
” Roberts and any of the other nine ...”
Say what?
They will if they know what’s good for em.
Thus far Roberts has failed to address the rumor that he was blackmailed by obammy to get the ruling on obammy care.
You’ve asked him personally? Do tell.
so far I haven’t heard of any reporter asking the big dope about this.
Only read that it happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.