Replies

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-

That's not at all what happened. Robert's question drew attention to the point that the Agency would be claiming to be making a "legal" interpretation of a law that had been sent back to them for being illegally ambiguous. He was pointing out the contradictory, and even hypocritical, nature of the claims of normalcy and appropriate due process the Government's Attorney was making.

In other words, his question led the GA to admit that he felt that if the USSC allowed a the situation to be ambiguous instead of ruling against the government outright, then the Agency would be thereby empowered to replace the Court in the determination of interpreting the legality of the matter.

This is how a Chief Justice points out that the government is asking the Court to invalidate it's own existence.

And I thought it differently from that.

I heard him to ask if an ambiguous law means the President wins vs the law is kicked back to Congress to resolve the ambiguity?

In other words, an ambiguous law is an unenforceable law, and an unenforceable law is an unconstitutional law. The solution is not to let this president decide and then have the next president decide otherwise, the solution is to declare it either unconstitutional and kick it back to Congress to resolve the ambiguity or to say the law is as its written and no ambiguity exists.

But either way, ambiguous law does NOT mean the President decides.

-PJ