In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.
This is a Conservative Judge's view of their role e.g. “to respect the role of the legislature and not undo what they have done.”
I have listened to Conservatives scream for more than 40 years that they want Judicial restraint and they don't want Judge made law. They get a CJ deferring to the legislature and they scream if the decision doesn't go their way.
I've come to the conclusion that Conservatives and Liberals both want a Court that only agrees with their political point of view.....
In his closing, the Chief Justice expressed a view of the role of Congress and the Court that I could easily support. My problem is not with his statement, but with the fact that he did not follow it.
For the sake of discussion, I will concede that the intent of Congress was to do good things such as strengthening health exchanges and providing affordable care to as many people as possible. However, the law was not just a statement of laudable intent. It included a very detailed and explicit road map of how that intent was to be achieved. Indeed,the law was so detailed, it consumed thousands of pages.
This particular case was centered on the provision for limiting payment of subsidies to people enrolling in exchanges established by states. Whether in hindsight this structure was wise or not, whether it advanced the overall laudable intent of the law's sponsors or not, it was within the power of congress to structure it this way and was approved by a majority of congress in the exact form and language written.
By the time the executive branch (IRS) started crafting regulations to implement the law, they determined that it would not work as written so they departed from the language of the law and extended the subsidy provision to exchanges established by the Department of HHS. The suit was brought by private individuals because they were harmed by an alleged improper action by the IRS. Their objection was to an overreach by the IRS, not the Congress. Indeed, they supported the plain language of the law.
In direct contrast to his expression of respect for the role of congress and deference for their supremacy as the exclusive power in crafting legislation, he trashed them for being sloppy in their writing and structure and dismissed their collective understanding of the English language. He combined his understanding of the intent of the legislations sponsors with his opinion that the drafters of the law were incapable of using the English language to express their true meaning and concluded that the court had the power to, through interpretation, change what a majority of congress had approved.
I know I have taken the long way around to say that I don't agree that his was the action of a conservative jurist and that those of us offering criticism are being inconsistent. In this instance, the Chief Justice talks a good game but acts entirely different. He ignores the fact that Congress is still in business and, if they made a mistake in drafting or used language contrary to the sponsors intent, the law as written was still the law that was approved by a majority of Congress. If correction or change is necessary to achieve the intent, it is up to congress to take that action, not the court. Expediency, changed party alignment in congress or speculation about some unknown impact on individuals is certainly a political consideration but is not justification for the judiciary to usurp the power of Congress.
You are profoundly confused.
The decision went the opposite way the people's representatives in Congress voted. No matter how loudly those same critters claim what the really meant! Drafting error, my ass! The exchange requirement was there on purpose to blackmail the states. The 'Rats squealed when the blackmail failed. And our worthless Supreme Court bailed them out!
The correct outcome was to invalidate the government's reading of the law and let today's congress and our worthless president deal with the resulting mess.