It's fairly clear in my experience that "state" means State and "Federal" means Federal. I would have a tough time accepting that "state" in this one section of the law, is meant to refer to BOTH states, and the "Nation State" - but in all other areas of the law it refers only to States.
This is going to be interesting to watch.
Roberts is silent because perhaps he has not received his orders yet from his masters. The man is without character.
They rewrote the law which is illegal.
>>Absent ambiguity, there are very few instances when “legislative intent” is presumed to trump the actual letter of the law.<<
IMHO “Texas v. White” still controls.
Feds, get thee behind me.
But Roberts’ tortured analysis was worse than Lucas’ attempt to save his “parsecs=time” screwup.
The fact we are always just one vote away from complete dictatorship should concern every American.
But LIVs don’t understand...
I’m pretty sure Roberts was blackmailed, probably because his Irish children were illegally adopted. It’s doubtful that they will fail to blackmail him again.
And tax means .......?
The “fix” will be the worst bending of law the USSC has come up with in US history.
Proper legal analysis means nothing to Ginsburg, Kagan & Sotamayer (the two lesbos of the apocalypse) or Breyer.
They only pretend to have any sort of intellectual consistency, and practice outcome-based jurisprudence.
Indeed.
There is no wiggle room on this. However, the court will rule in favor or the government. And why not?
Not only is that a correct rule as a generalization, but the Supreme Court has historically not only refused to rewrite legislation on this basis, the Court has specifically refused to consider legislative intent to interpret legislation.
MORE IMPORTANT! Everyone should write the House and Senate Judiciary committees asking for immediate action on the following issue. If you have a Senator or Member on Judiciary, write them a direct letter. The threat that Justice Roberts is subject to personal pressure merits review and consideration by Congress.
Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform.
As everyone is aware, there is extensive gossip in the political community to the effect that Roberts and his wife have only two children who were adopted.
They were purportedly born in a foreign jurisdiction and there were in place legal constraints that effectively precluded US persons from adopting children born there under the circumstances of the Roberts adoption.
So to avoid those restrictions, the adoption was accomplished through the device of a third country system. Whether or not the third country worked to accomplish an effective adoption or not is not clear from the level of gossip in circulation.
The presumed threat is that the Roberts' could lose their two children several years down the road from the initial adoption events.
The end consequence of this condition, as reported by loose talk and political gossip, is that Roberts' vote on Obamacare was leveraged by the zero in the White House to uphold legislation that everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face.
I do not know what, if any, merit, substance, or facts exist to support the gossip.
I think it is and was the obligation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to know stuff like this. The gossip alone, unrefuted that it is by any authoritative response, affects confidence in our Constitutional process.
What should be done is that House Judiciary should immediately schedule a hearing on the issue and subpoena Justice Roberts to explain the actual facts.
Yes, the `plain meaning’ rule of construction. But that was before Change.
Roberts is probably laying low. The last time he lectured us and said that it wasn’t his job to save us from our political choices.
The only way the Dark Lord’s SCOTUS minions can save this fumble/fall on this grenade for Sauron is by becoming a court of chancery, measuring things with the size of their feet, and this matter is, as you say, a matter of law.
No worry for the Necromancer in the White Hut though, since it isn’t at all clear that we remain a “(We are) a nation of laws.” US v. Nixon, 1974.
All his Majesty has to do is issue a proclamation: “This is what was meant. I have spoke. Let it be writ. Let it be done. Now, let’s golf.”
I don’t buy the
“Roberts is compromised”
scare
Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because
- he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause, and
- he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers. Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”
If you recall, Roberts struck down the Medicaid provisions in Obamacare. This protects the states against Federal funding threats. IOW - there is a conservative basis for all of Roberts 2012 opinions.
The present case is NOT argued on Constitutional grounds. It is being argued that the letter of the law is not being followed.
I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences”
= = =
I also feel pretty good about Kennedy’s prospects of killing the law.
He felt the strongest that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in 2012 when he sided with the conservatives. It was Kennedy who lobbied the strongest to get Roberts to side with the conservatives and himself.
Kennedy doesn’t like this law at all.
“should be interpreted literally”
well, not when it doesn’t help you, i guess.
State IS Federal. The penalty is a tax.
Up is Down, Black is White....
Roberts was silent before the previous ruling when he blindsided us. I seriously doubt that he’ll reveal his hand this time. But I don’t expect his ruling to be on the side of the Constitution any more than it was then.
It doesn’t matter. If we win Obama will demand a “clean fix” and threaten to veto some funding bill if it doesn’t include it. Boehner and McConnell will say, “Well, we tried”, and cooperate with Dems to pass one over conservative objections.
I saw some live updating on the SCT blog that gave insight into how the left wing part of the Court was trying to argue that, if the result of a literal reading is that you have a statute that makes no sense or results in defeating its own purpose, that reading will be disregarded. In my legal career, I haven’t argued a lot of statutory interpretation cases, but I recognize that as an argument that can be made consistent with one of the rules of statutory construction (ie: that the result of the interpretation should not be absurd or defeat the purpose of the statute).
I don’t disagree with your statement, but can you tell which rule is predominant?
The fix is in. He doesn't need to speak.