Agreed.

ray

Yes, intent is often argued, but that's usually when the written word is ambiguous

well, intent was argued in this case...
Six of the Justices didn't find it ambiguous.
Perhaps because they read and absorbed the amicus brief of the authors of the law to ensure that the intent was clear?
Perhaps because they read the whole law and demonstrated as Roberts did, there wasn't any genuine ambiguity?
And perhaps those who opposed the majority, had to ignore both the amicus brief of those who wrote the law, and the rest of the language of the law?

I agree with you Ricky that no one ever intended to deny tax credits to those on the federal exchanges. Of course when you draft sloppily you are susceptible to conspiracy theories as to why that happened. I think some Republicans were disingenuous about claiming that the error was intentional in an attempt to push the states to set up an exchanges but maybe they really believed--I don't know. In any case, it gave opponents an opportunity to attack the law and naturally they took advantage of it.

The thing to remember is that legislative intent is not even looked at if the statute can only be interpreted one way. So Roberts had to look at the statute and find it was ambiguous without even considering the amici brief or even other indications of legislative intent. Only after finding ambiguity did he look at legislative intent. And even then I am not sure the amici brief ( I think--I have only looked at descriptions of it) contained the type of legislative intent that courts typically look at, which would include amendments to the bills, hearings or debates on the bill, speeches and floor debates on the bill, etc. After the fact statements of individual legislators or drafters are not given much, if any, weight. See footnote 3 of the following case. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

And Roberts did not cite the amici brief, presumably because if he did he would be wading into political waters that he would rather avoid. That is not say the brief had no effect, but Roberts needed to find other justifications for his decision.

You guys from outside of the States have to remember that, the United States Supreme Court very, very rarely likes to get into fights between the Executive and Legislative branches. They prefer to maintain the checks and balances between them. That's another way it's different from your system(s). (Not that you don't already know that, but you have to consider that when praising why the supreme court didn't overturn Obamacare/AHA...and not saying that that's the only reason of course.)

But again, you guys aren't going to have to live under it. This is nothing like you have in your countries. Not a damn bit.

JimHackerMP wrote:You guys from outside of the States have to remember that, the United States Supreme Court very, very rarely likes to get into fights between the Executive and Legislative branches. They prefer to maintain the checks and balances between them. That's another way it's different from your system(s). (Not that you don't already know that, but you have to consider that when praising why the supreme court didn't overturn Obamacare/AHA...and not saying that that's the only reason of course.)

Our Supreme Court is young, but its predecessor, the Law Lords in session did much the same -

But again, you guys aren't going to have to live under it. This is nothing like you have in your countries. Not a damn bit.

Not like ours, no. Not far off the Swiss system that my sister lives under, though. But your legislature didn't have the guts to enact true reform because that would be "socialism" and the money-men in the health and insurance industries would scream. Even the things Republicans favoured a decade or so ago are toxic. Of course the previous system sucked as well.

freeman3 wrote:I agree with you Ricky that no one ever intended to deny tax credits to those on the federal exchanges.

Because no matter how many times the Obama-Administration's "hero" (their word) of the ACA, Jonathan Gruber, said this was the goal, that doesn't matter, right?

I mean, how could the guy who was the brains behind it know what the intention was?

Of course when you draft sloppily you are susceptible to conspiracy theories as to why that happened.

Right. On the other hand, the plain meaning of the text, repeated SEVEN times does not indicate sloppiness--it indicates INTENT!

The thing to remember is that legislative intent is not even looked at if the statute can only be interpreted one way. So Roberts had to look at the statute and find it was ambiguous without even considering the amici brief or even other indications of legislative intent.

He had to look at the law and flip it on its head. He had to take "established by the State" and understand it as "not established by the State."

He has NO IDEA what the intent of the wording was. In order to keep the law intact, he had to invent an intent. That's not what the judicial branch is for.

Only after finding ambiguity did he look at legislative intent. And even then I am not sure the amici brief ( I think--I have only looked at descriptions of it) contained the type of legislative intent that courts typically look at, which would include amendments to the bills, hearings or debates on the bill, speeches and floor debates on the bill, etc. After the fact statements of individual legislators or drafters are not given much, if any, weight. See footnote 3 of the following case. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

And Roberts did not cite the amici brief, presumably because if he did he would be wading into political waters that he would rather avoid. That is not say the brief had no effect, but Roberts needed to find other justifications for his decision.

Correct. He found political considerations, which is NOT HIS JOB.

Every one of the justices who voted in the majority should resign.

I looked at Gruber's remarks and nowhere does he ever say that you will not get tax credits if you're on a federal exchange. He says the federal government is slow in getting its exchange set up as a means of pressuring states to get their exchanges set up. What is the pressure he is referring to? The people in states not getting tax credits for health insurance because their state did not have an exchange. But if Gruber really thought that a person on a federal exchange could not get tax credits then foot-dragging by the federal government in setting up a federal exchange does not create pressure on the states; the only reasonable interpretation of that statement is that Gruber is indicating that once the federal government sets up an exchange people in states without state exchanges will get tax credits. (Otherwise foot- dragging is not relevant)There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

So, no, Gruber did not say that those on federal exchanges would not get tax credits. The worst you can say is that Gruber wanted state exchanges to be set up so he glossed over the fact that once the federal exchange is set up people in states without exchanges will get tax credits. But that's on him, not the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... e-remarks/

I already addressed your other arguments and will let those stand.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I agree with you Ricky that no one ever intended to deny tax credits to those on the federal exchanges.

Because no matter how many times the Obama-Administration's "hero" (their word) of the ACA, Jonathan Gruber, said this was the goal, that doesn't matter, right?

Where did he say that federal exchanges would not have tax credits. Please direct me to a quote, because frankly I am not aware of him saying that once.

(delaying federal exchanges is not the same thing, by the way)

Right. On the other hand, the plain meaning of the text, repeated SEVEN times does not indicate sloppiness--it indicates INTENT!

It can indeed indicate sloppiness, especially when.it creates ambiguity.

Every one of the justices who voted in the majority should resign.

Pram, toys all over the place.

Chill, the USSC did what you wanted on the EPA. Win some, lose some.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I agree with you Ricky that no one ever intended to deny tax credits to those on the federal exchanges.

Because no matter how many times the Obama-Administration's "hero" (their word) of the ACA, Jonathan Gruber, said this was the goal, that doesn't matter, right?

Where did he say that federal exchanges would not have tax credits. Please direct me to a quote, because frankly I am not aware of him saying that once.

(delaying federal exchanges is not the same thing, by the way)

Here you are:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

That's what I said he said--whatever you meant.

Right. On the other hand, the plain meaning of the text, repeated SEVEN times does not indicate sloppiness--it indicates INTENT!

It can indeed indicate sloppiness, especially when.it creates ambiguity.

No, seven times shows intent. It was not ambiguous. It was only ambiguous if you/Roberts think constant repetition is a mistake.

So, if I bump into you once and beg your pardon, that's a mistake. If I do it seven times, it's an assault.

Every one of the justices who voted in the majority should resign.

Pram, toys all over the place.

Yes, the Childish One calling someone else childish.

Chill, the USSC did what you wanted on the EPA. Win some, lose some.

I'm okay with "win some, lose some."

I'm not okay with them torturing the English language. They have waterboarded innocent words to reach the wrong verdict on the ACA twice now.

The government says failure to obtain insurance results in a fine. Roberts says, essentially, they don't mean "fine" (because that would be unconstitutional), they mean "tax."

It's just blatant dishonesty.

It's also interesting to note that liberals see the USSC as a legislature. They have a bloc of four solid votes. Those votes do not think or argue outside of the bloc.

That's not how the Court is supposed to be. They are supposed to be evaluative, not partisan hacks.

"The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it." This sentence tells you that Gruber never said that people on the federal exchange would not get tax credits. He says the federal government is delaying building its exchange--why? He is saying they are doing this so that states would put in exchanges to avoid losing tax credits IF the federal exchange does not get constructed (or at least until it did get constructed). If someone would not get tax credits on a federal exchange than to delay putting in the federal exchange would not pressure the states to get their exchanges put in--whether or not the federal exchange got constructed would have no impact or pressure on states putting in their own exchanges. States would want to put in exchanges to get the tax credits, irrespective of the federal exchange.

Is this so hard to to understand? I doubt it. Gruber was all you had...and there was nothing there.

freeman3 wrote:"The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it." This sentence tells you that Gruber never said that people on the federal exchange would not get tax credits. He says the federal government is delaying building its exchange--why? He is saying they are doing this so that states would put in exchanges to avoid losing tax credits IF the federal exchange does not get constructed (or at least until it did get constructed). If someone would not get tax credits on a federal exchange than to delay putting in the federal exchange would not pressure the states to get their exchanges put in--whether or not the federal exchange got constructed would have no impact or pressure on states putting in their own exchanges. States would want to put in exchanges to get the tax credits, irrespective of the federal exchange.

Is this so hard to to understand? I doubt it. Gruber was all you had...and there was nothing there.

I cited more than 1 sentence. I can give others. His theory was that the States would be forced to do it or receive no benefits, while being forced to pay for the benefits of other states. That is clear. You can deny it all you want, but I presented it in black and white.

And, I don't just have Gruber--I have the bill itself. Roberts admitted what it meant before twisting it into something else. Again, seven times is not a mistake.

On a different note, how in the world can we take this decision seriously?

Both Sotomayor and Ginsburg performed homosexual weddings. Now, if they had not made up their minds, would they have done them? They should have recused themselves.

Finally, in 2009, during her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor said there was "no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage." Last Friday, she voted with the majority that there was.

So, did it come into being in the last six years? Was she lying (under oath) in 2009?

fate

Finally, in 2009, during her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor said there was "no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

There still isn't . But circumstances change.
There is the right to equal treatment under the law in the 14th amendment.
In 2015, when the issue reached the SCOTUS, there were 37 States where same sex marriage is allowed. They ruled that it was time for the rest to both recognize other states same sex marriage and treat their citizens equally.

Your nation changed and accepted same sex marriage. All the court did was recognize the change and force those who would continue to discriminate to get in line with the rest of the nation.
This issue is a perfect example of how a federal system allows for states to try laws and regulations as they see fit. And as the laws and regulations either fail or succeed other states can follow that lead or not.

rickyp wrote:fate

Finally, in 2009, during her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor said there was "no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

There still isn't . But circumstances change.
There is the right to equal treatment under the law in the 14th amendment.
In 2015, when the issue reached the SCOTUS, there were 37 States where same sex marriage is allowed. They ruled that it was time for the rest to both recognize other states same sex marriage and treat their citizens equally.

Your nation changed and accepted same sex marriage. All the court did was recognize the change and force those who would continue to discriminate to get in line with the rest of the nation.

I apologize for bringing a second issue in. My point is the USSC has become a political and legislative arm of government. It is NOT supposed to be that.

Even your post affirms my position: "Your nation changed and accepted same sex marriage. All the court did was recognize the change."

With all respect, that is NOT the role of the Supreme Court. That's what a legislature does.

The Supreme Court interprets the Law. They don't make law--or at least they're not supposed to.

fate

The Supreme Court interprets the Law. They don't make law--or at least they're not supposed to

yes. But that interpretation can change as society changes.. and indeed there are dozens of examples of where the court did do..
Here's one:

tkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing intellectually disabled individuals violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who is intellectually disabled.[1] Twelve years later in Hall v. Florida the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.[2

The courts regularly upheld rulings against inter racial marriage (Pace V Alabama) (Kirby V Krby) until 1948. And then Scotus ruled in Loving V Virginia.
Nothing had changed in the Constitution. Only the way it was interpreted. Interpretations change. Because society changes.
The SCOTUS didn't make a new law, They only understood that society was willing to accept that a broader interpretation of "Equal Access" than previously.

he U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

All you need to do with Warrens language is change it from "another race" to "the same sex" ...

rickyp wrote:fate

The Supreme Court interprets the Law. They don't make law--or at least they're not supposed to

yes. But that interpretation can change as society changes.. and indeed there are dozens of examples of where the court did do..
Here's one:

tkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing intellectually disabled individuals violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who is intellectually disabled.[1] Twelve years later in Hall v. Florida the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.[2

The courts regularly upheld rulings against inter racial marriage (Pace V Alabama) (Kirby V Krby) until 1948. And then Scotus ruled in Loving V Virginia.
Nothing had changed in the Constitution. Only the way it was interpreted. Interpretations change. Because society changes.
The SCOTUS didn't make a new law, They only understood that society was willing to accept that a broader interpretation of "Equal Access" than previously.

he U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

All you need to do with Warrens language is change it from "another race" to "the same sex" ...

I'm moving this back to the right forum.