Discussion for article #237859
Bullshit.
3 Likes
He has a point about some of the seeming self-contradictory and ambiguous wording within the law as it is written. Donât get me wrong, I support the law and agree with the courtâs decision. But sometimes I wonder who actually puts the pen to paper in the final draft, and where are the legal editors that should be going over every piece of legislation with a fine tooth comb to avoid ambiguity and possible challenges to huge-impact legislation like the challenge of King v. Burwell.
In the end, Roberts got it right in the following summary of his opinion:
"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confinedââto say what the law is.â 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."
2 Likes
Except here is the context of what Nancy Pelosi said
Pelosi: People wonât appreciate reform until it passes
- Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people wonât appreciate how
great the Democratâs health plan is until after it passes. âYouâve
heard about the controversies, the process about the billâŚbut I donât
know if youâve heard that it is legislation for the future â not just
about health care for America, but about a healthier America,â she
told the National Association of Counties annual legislative
conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to
Washington. âBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out
what is in it â away from the fog of the controversy.â
8 Likes
Itâs not clear what in particular youâre pointing to, but certainly CJ Robertsâ shots at Congress are at the very least historically consistent (SCOTUS, particularly when the majority speaks thru the current CJ, have done this many many times over the 2 centuries plus of the existence of the constitutional framework and its institutions.), very probably intended to work as a palliative sop to extremist cancers currently buggering around with post Teddy Roosevelt establishment Republican-style conservatism, probably also is intended to gloss over the fact that at least 4 members of the Court agreed to hear this goofy challenge and so one of or both the CJ and Kennedy require some bit of figleaf to point to as theoretically covering up his (or their) exposed nasties, and to some extent is merited (as it would be in just about every piece of Rube Goldbergian nightmare period contrivance thatâs come out of Congress for over 30 years now and running).
Iâm not surprised at the vote nor the comments. Had the Supremes accepted one sentence in 90+ pages as the controlling feature, havoc would have ensued. Lots of Federal laws also have numerous instances of poor, contradictory, nonsensical and ambiguous sentences, paragraphs et al. Image all the laws that could be challenged in the same vein if one took only the literal meaning of one passage in an entire law.
Still, I wonder what fat Tony would have said if some other aspect of the ACA had been challenged re cherry-picking one single sentence? Bet it would have been the same, exposing again his right-wing bias regardless of the what the law said!
2 Likes
and bypassed the Senateâs normal 60-vote filibuster requirement.
Wut?
3 Likes
Speaking of âinartful draftingâ,I wonder if he read Scaliaâs dissent?
4 Likes
Little CYA action from John-John as he flees to Japan to avoid the wrath of the right-wing frothers.
I wonder how many other â4 word bombsâ people who want to tear down the ACA will find in that 1200 page(?) âinartful draftâ.
I donât like the ACA. Half measures never go far enough. Single Payer was then, and remains today, a better and more workable idea. That said, the ACA is better than the nothing at all which so many in the Grumpy Old Party were and are so ready to inflict on the poor, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. All of this to stick a thumb in Obamaâs eye.
So, how many votes will there be in the House this week and next to repeal the ACA now that it is fairly clear that The GOP canât get the courts to do their dirty work for them?
3 Likes
âinartful draftingâ or anal nitpicking?
1 Like
Nah. He makes several good points and we should be adult enough to recognize and acknowledge that they are applicable across the board and are the result of (primarily) the GOP/Teatrolls pushing Congress further and further off the rails throughout Clintonâs, Bushâs and Obamaâs presidencies. Where the Dems have played âtit for tatâ and engaged in some of the same shenanigans, like forcing things through by using Reconciliation, we should be able to look at it and admit that, practical realities aside, itâs still not the way legislative business SHOULD be getting done, that some of the mistakes in legislation like this or other pieces of legislation are, in fact, a result of Congress being off the rails and the situation being such that nobody can manage to put it back on the rails.
6 Likes
Thatâll show 'em!
[makes masturbatory gesture]
This bothers me, Not At All. If this allows rwâers to feel better about themselves, fine.
We won here. In the end, they did too as the healthcare system remains intact albeit, imperfect.
2 Likes
I was referring to Robertsâs âbehind closed doorsâ reference and his complaint about âthe Senateâs normal 60-vote filibuster requirement.â
1 Like
Thereâs something very passive/aggressive in his remarks. He hates his decision but he had to do it, is what Iâm hearing.
4 Likes
There would not be a roberts court if legislators nationally were not âinartful draftersâ ! They are there to interpret the intent and letter of the lawâŚNot all legislators or aides are attorneyâs âŚThere were 167 repub amendments submitted with 140 accepted in the 11 months of debate over the drafting of the law⌠Culpability can be laid on both sides, Mr. roberts!!
Even with this final decision on Obamacare, the fucking corporate media and their rightwing lackeys in the press, will continue to treat Obamacare as if its still up for debate. You just watch. I seriously doubt theyâre about to quit nowâŚeven with this decision.
Its as if it never passed into law for most of the media, even when it had years ago, and explaining what was actually in the law was never in their wheelhouse for some fucking no-good reason.
Its the perpetual outrage machine of our modern media that markets in faux outrage in order to keep their ratings up. Thatâs what has often perpetuated this nonsense over Obamacare that the GOTP has latched onto from the very beginning.
3 Likes
Yep. Not like we suddenly emerged from the dark ages. Would be nice, but Roger Ailes just signed a new contract to continue as devil in chief.
1 Like
Considering that there was 6 months of general debate in Congress and the gang of 6 and in the country it can hardly be claimed to be anything other than what it is. The GOP did not want anything. If they were debating in good faith and it was just a detail issue or some add on that may have helped or made it easier for them to take than I could see this case. They were never going to accept anything.
If the Demâs did have the full 60 votes and they got it through that way than he would still say the same thing. That was just the way to do it and it did matter to the budget.
Also, the court has little room to judge the other branches much of the time.