Posted on 03/04/2015 11:15:53 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
11:26: When a law is ambiguous, the court often defers to the agency in charge of administering it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said just that, and that the IRS’ interpretation that subsidies were available to all was a reasonable one.
Verrilli resisted questions about ambiguity, saying it was clear. But if not, he said, the agency does deserve deference.
But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he was concerned about giving the power to allocate billions of dollars in subsidies to an agency.
It was then that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked his only substantial question. If it was up to the agency to decide, he asked Verrilli, could a new administration change the decision?
Verrilli said its action would have to be consistent with an accurate reading of the law..
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Senate deliberations clearly show that the public option was dropped from the bill to appease some Senators in order to get the bill passed. The House wanted it, but was forced to accept the Senate bill without it or get nothing at all.
Not only would it be revisionist history to suggest that it was always meant to be there, it would also codify bad-faith negotiating if Democrats think they can say anything now to get a bill passed, just to have the court give them what they really wanted all along later, after the bill is passed under false pretenses.
-PJ
They are not laws now. They are “concepts”.
...shudder!
Roberts had a visit at SCOTUS by Chicago-Godfather-Thugs on January 14th, 2009 ONE week before the W.H. was illegally stolen. In his mind are gross pictures what happened to Bill Gwatney, Andrew Breitbart, Michael Hastings and more mysterious killings, hello!!!
This should have been open and shut. Once the lawyer said the ambiguity means this or that, the court should have said, “Oh, it’s ambiguous? Do you think a whole nation should be subject to laws that have ambiguous language?”
""I think that’s where Roberts was going."Hummm, I wonder if he's thinking it may be an unlawful delegation of power.
Deciding in favor of Obama would let all future Congresses off the hook for more and more wordsmithing shenanigans. I wonder if the USSC is noting that, if nothing else. They are just fencing themselves in as garbage collectors.
I have some tin foil you can borrow.
True.. no doubt you think 2016 elections will be HONEST..
and Myth Romney is not a stealth democrat..
And the lack of a separability clause just goes to show how brazen the Democrats feel about treating the USSC as a doormat.
“Roberts and Alito are RINGERS that George Bush Jr. INSTALLED to further his familys ONE WORLD GIVERNMENT treasonous agenda..
The whole family are One Worlders.. always have been..
So is Barry Soetero... the Clintoons.. and K Street..
I agree...and then, there’s blackmail...”
And of course, there is substantial proof of this and not opinion?
blackmail
or
new world order?
I’m waiting.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Bureaucratic whim is tyranny.
Spot on.
I agree. An ambiguous 'law' is no law at all. When faced with such the Court should find the case injusticiable and remand the text back to Congress to straighten out. It should give no consideration whatsoever to any political or administrative consequences of such action.
Exactly the correct response. It teaches Congress to write good laws. That has really helped in contract law with judges demanding and clients realizing that they can write remedies into their contracts.
-PJ
And sometimes it does, like when we speak of the State Department or the Secretary of State. But often it doesn't, like when we speak of doing our state income tax, or when the Constitution says "...these rights are reserved to the states or the people."
Jonathan Gruber's comments easily clarify the context in which "state" was being used, i.e., as opposed to "federal." That is why he spoke at length about coercing governors, especially recalcitrant republican governors, into setting up state exchanges, lest their citizens be unable to get subsidies.
Indeed, if Obama/Gruber wanted everyone to be eligible for subsidies, why even bother creating both types? And, if there was a legal or even a political reason to have both types, a first-year law student could have plainly stated: "Although both state and federal exchanges are being created, either one will be able to grant subsidies to those citizens within each state who qualify for them."
This was not a typo or a mistake. It was intended to force governors to create state exchanges, but the plan backfired. Now, they are desperately trying to claw their way out of their own trap.
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.
