|
DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS and health insurance subsidies (3/8/2015 2:09:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Yes, but even Clarence Thomas has said that they must consider the intent of congress.
It is possible that for the first time (I think) Thomas may vote counter to Scalia and against the plaintiffs here and may even share in the majority opinion (6-3 ?) and also...may even consider 'state' to mean the country as well.
I doubt that one. It's pretty clear that Congress wasn't referring to the Federal government when it used the phrase, "established by the state."
That is why we have learned from past mistakes with the law on the books. When laws are created these days there are two concepts put into play. The first is the actual law that was written. This spells out mechanics and definitions, along with how it intergrates itself into existing law. The second set of documents are the 'spirit' of the law. This is the author's views and wording for the law. Obviously no one can know conditions twenty years down the road with any accuracy. So the spirit of the law helps judges determine the intent of the written law as it relates to a case.
From what I've heard recently, Democrats have given this information over to the court to decide. Do you happen to have what they gave to the court handy?
Regardless of what you think I'm saying, if you actually read what I've posted in this thread, I do think the SCOTUS will agree with the Federal Government, because of the intent of the law. It's obvious that what they wrote supports the Plaintiff's case, but the intent supports the Fed's case. So, if intent is more important (and there have been SCOTUS cases where it has been), then they will rule in favor of the defense. Furthermore, even though I think Obamacare is bad law, I would agree with the SCOTUS's ruling if they ruled in favor of the defense, based on intent of the law.
|
|
|
|
