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 ...
It becomes the Law of Social Justice. It’s a brave new world.
“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?
The fact that this duplictous, two-faced creep of a Chief Justice doesn't outright condemn this chills me to the bone.
From the lips of daddy Bush, “It’s a new world order”. All you had to do was read his lips.
Ambiguous: Clear language that does not mean what a liberal wants it to mean.
Clear: Ambiguous language as defined by a liberal.
Get it?
And that’s the way the court will rule. We are ruled by bureaucrats and that’s the way everyone wants it. That way there really is no accountability for the politicians. And the Supreme Court is nothing but politicians now.
They will rule that the word “state” means the federal government.
What's stopping him? Roberts’ reign has been as destructive from the bench as 0bama’s has been from the WH.
And both have the same goal: The destruction of the separation of powers and the destruction of congressional authority.
I wonder if Thomas has been a big disappointment to Bush I.
Roberts preparing to punt.
Blackmailed bastard he is!
How come the WH is NEVER held to account for their dirty tricks? WAKE UP, SCROTUS.
Actually, Alito has been a fairly consistent conservative. Not as good as either Thomas or Scalia, but adequate. Roberts, however, has been a disappointment.
Why is it that Democrats are so much better at picking ideologically reliable Supreme Court Justices? All of LBJ’s, Clinton’s and Obama’s appointments were far left liberals and stayed that way. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all appointed justices that were either liberals to begin with or that became more and more liberal over time.
Bart: When I grow up, I wanna be a lawyer just like you, Mr. Hutz.
Lionel Hutz: Good for you, son. If there’s one thing this world needs, it’s more lawyers. Could you imagine a world without lawyers?
That doesn’t ring like a good argument or reasoning. What they’re looking at is a mess.
1. The non-recusal of Kagan.
2. The desire to correct a perceived flaw in a poorly written law.
3. The thought that such a consideration from #2 should be based on the monetary value of the flaw
4. The fact that deferring to the administrative agency could result in a cycle of never ending re-interpretations from administration to administration.
5. The court is being asked to basicaly re-write the law everytime an appeal is heard.
The correct judgement would be maintain the status quo, Invalidate the law as constitutionally ambiguous, then to delay that invalidation and send the whole ball back to congress to solve.
If you really want a good political thriller and grab for power, Have the supreme court threaten Congress and the President with an appointment of a special ‘Master’ to resolve the issue.
"The U.S. Treasury Department has rebuffed a request by House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R- Wis., to explain $3 billion in payments that were made to health insurers even though Congress never authorized the spending through annual appropriations."
I wonder what the SCROTUS thinks about THIS?
I have some tin foil you can borrow.
Thus, a dictatorship.
“You’re absolutely right. If Roberts rewrote the law the first time round, there’s no reason to think he can’t or won’t do so again.”
And then, after we spend money and political capital to get our “liberty amendments” the court will, likewise, write them out of existence.
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.