If it’s ambiguous, does government win? Roberts finally speaks.

Washington Post ^ | March 4, 2015 | Sandhya Somashekhar and Robert Barnes

[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..

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Ok, smartie, then what is the reason??? Throwing rocks is not intelligent. What is your theory if it is not:

blackmail or new world order?

I’m waiting.”

I don’t have a theory. However, if we want to play a game, I say it’s neither. My theory is it’s due to the way they interpreted the constitution. Or, since you had a second choice, mine would be their law clerks are all liberal and the justices don’t even read the briefs.

How’s that?

[americanparatrooper]

Where in the US Constitution does this out of control government have the authority to make any demands upon the States, let alone, demand the States create exchanges and then make the States pay for them after five (5) years.

The SCOTUS only argument is what does the word “state” means?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

[Talisker]

circlecity: "Verrilli said its action would have to be consistent with an accurate reading of the law." And just how do you do that if it's completely ambiguous? An "accurate reading" becomes whatever some bureaucrat says it is.

Cincinatus' Wife: I think that’s where Roberts was going.

I think that's where Roberts IS going, LOL!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Is this about the meaning of “is?”

: )

[Talisker]

Is this about the meaning of “is?” : )

LOL, it's ALL about the meaning of "is"!

[i_robot73]

I know I am a lowly self-educated (post-indoctrination center [aka ‘school’]) serf but, what happened to void for vagueness?

Only gov’t could think that making an incomprehensible Law would allow the SAME gov’t to dictate exactly what ‘they meant’ instead of what was PASSED.

It’s a damn shame the lawyer didn’t smack down the Leftist judges when they started spouting off ‘the words written, in plain English, don’t mean what they say’

[VerySadAmerican]

I agree and when it says “the states”, plural, we know what that means.

I thought the federal exchanges were set up ONLY after the SC ruled the states couldn’t be forced to set them up. So, the original plan was not to have two exchanges competing. I may be wrong.

What I’m not wrong about is Roberts can make “state” mean anything he wants it to mean. Thus my comment.

[TBP]

IOW, the Dhimmicraps cna change it any way they want, but Republicans had better not change it back.

[TBP]

Roberts may well be. So far, Alito has been pretty good.

[TBP]

Doesn’t matter. Roberts rewrote the law once, so there is no reason he couldn’t do it again.

[TBP]

They said that the mandate wasn’t a tax — then went into court and swore it was, and Roberts rewrote the law to agree with them.

[TBP]

Exactly the way it operates. Rand got this.

[Slings and Arrows]

Ayep. She predicted the Zero administration with prophetic accuracy.

[TBP]

“The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It’s vastly more efficient.
Now, let me state the present rules,”
The lawyer then went on,
“These very simple guidelines
You can rely upon”
You’re gouging on you prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less.

“A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount:
That would be collusion!
You must compete. But not too much
For if you do, you see,
Then the market would be yours
And that’s monopoly!”

Price too high? Or price too low?
Now, which charge did they make?
Well, they weren’t loath to charging both
With Public Good at stake!

In fact, the went on better
They charged “monopoly!”
No muss, no fuss, oh woe is us,
Egad, they charged all three! — R. W Grant, “The Incredible Bread Machine”