#16. To: cranko, TooConservative, liberator, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, CZ82, BobCeleste (#0)
Here are some excerpts from the statements from the SCOTUS justices. Roberts comments are quite telling:
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges.
“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote.
Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent, as they did in 2012.
Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
Another reasoned decision pulled out of his ass. Of course he had to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase........who wouldn't.
Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
Another reasoned decision pulled out of his ass. Of course he had to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase........who wouldn't.
Let's compare Robert's approach:
Roberts to the sheeple: "“In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
Not sure anyone else has brought this up yet ,but Roberts can be impeached . He is a self appointed uber-legislator and that doesn't stand the constitutional test .
The other SCOTUS decision that seems to be falling under the radar is 'Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project' which upholds disparate impact laws in housing .
#50. To: tomder55, TooConservative, CZ82, liberator, GarySpFc (#49)
Not sure anyone else has brought this up yet ,but Roberts can be impeached . He is a self appointed uber-legislator and that doesn't stand the constitutional test .
I heard a local talk radio conservative in Texas mention Roberts could be impeached. He did not think it would happen. Lynn Woolley was the commentator.
