It doesn't. FYI, Robert's single question indicated his antagonistic position to the argument that the legal passage under question was ambiguous.
This "report" us just liberals trying to set up justification for acting shocked when they lose, and also trying to normalize Kennedy's ridiculous position that the Court should consider one-sided economic effects over the clear interpretation of the actual law.
Make no mistake -the Court is about to rule on it's own relevancy here. Because if they rule that the actual law can be openly broken by an Agency's claimed interpretative needs, there is literally no need for the Supreme Court anymore.
[[It doesn’t. FYI, Robert’s single question indicated his antagonistic position to the argument that the legal passage under question was ambiguous]]
I beg to differ- Roberts has indicated by his questioning that he believes it’s up to presidents to interpret the details of the case/HC law- I can’t remember exactly how he worded it, but it seemed to indicate he was going to allow the law, then let presidents repeal or reenact the law as they see fit- which is in lien with his previous statement about the passage of the HC law I nthe first place that the supreme court’s job is ‘not to protect people from poor choices in elections” or something along this line-
[[Make no mistake -the Court is about to rule on it’s own relevancy here. Because if they rule that the actual law can be openly broken by an Agency’s claimed interpretative needs,]]
Again, just a further point- Roberts has indicated it seems that he is going to allow president can break or reinforce the law according to their interpretive needs- I wish I had book marked the article discussing Robert’s question and indication-
I hope you’re right.