kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 25, 2015 11:17:45 GMT -5
It's obviously pretty easy to argue with that, seeing as how six jurists just did so. Words most certainly do have meaning. And the best way to accurately interpret them is to read them in the larger context in which they were drafted. I'd suggest it's hard -- even impossible -- to argue with that. Except when the meaning of the words is so clear, you don't need to "read them in the larger context in which they were drafted." That's statutory construction 101.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 25, 2015 11:26:23 GMT -5
It's obviously pretty easy to argue with that, seeing as how six jurists just did so. Words most certainly do have meaning. And the best way to accurately interpret them is to read them in the larger context in which they were drafted. I'd suggest it's hard -- even impossible -- to argue with that. Except when the meaning of the words is so clear, you don't need to "read them in the larger context in which they were drafted." That's statutory construction 101. If plain reading creates an absurd result, statutory construction 101 says to consider legislative intent in any appellate review. People can think the law is bad or stupid or whatever, fine, but if this is a 'bad' result, we need to redo countless cases that use the exact same logic.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jun 25, 2015 11:31:46 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 25, 2015 11:39:24 GMT -5
Except when the meaning of the words is so clear, you don't need to "read them in the larger context in which they were drafted." That's statutory construction 101. If plain reading creates an absurd result, statutory construction 101 says to consider legislative intent in any appellate review. People can think the law is bad or stupid or whatever, fine, but if this is a 'bad' result, we need to redo countless cases that use the exact same logic. Enlighten me. What's the absurd result?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 25, 2015 11:41:58 GMT -5
KC, you're seriously disingenuous and obnoxious in most blue and gray threads you post in. The fact that this made it to the Supreme Court kind of shows there was an absurd result, doesn't it?
I'm not really interested in engaging with you anymore. I actually enjoy hearing from people with other viewpoints. I don't like sifting through smug crap just to get there.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Jun 25, 2015 11:44:29 GMT -5
It's obviously pretty easy to argue with that, seeing as how six jurists just did so. Words most certainly do have meaning. And the best way to accurately interpret them is to read them in the larger context in which they were drafted. I'd suggest it's hard -- even impossible -- to argue with that. Except when the meaning of the words is so clear, you don't need to "read them in the larger context in which they were drafted." That's statutory construction 101. Scalia at 3:
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jun 25, 2015 12:03:42 GMT -5
If plain reading creates an absurd result, statutory construction 101 says to consider legislative intent in any appellate review. People can think the law is bad or stupid or whatever, fine, but if this is a 'bad' result, we need to redo countless cases that use the exact same logic. Enlighten me. What's the absurd result? I'll engage: The absurd result is that the law ceases to function if the interpretation you advance is adopted. You couldn't possibly believe that the people who passed the bill intended that to occur. It simply doesn't make sense to have federally run exchanges if there is no tax benefit to doing so. I'm not sure there's a cogent argument to the contrary. Moreover, the interpretation runs counter to virtually every other time that tax treatment of the exchanges are mentioned in the act. So, that's the "interpret in context" part. This so clearly wasn't what was meant by the drafters of the law that I find it embarrassing that three Supreme Court justices bought the argument. This was a typo! Courts every day "reform" contracts or other instruments in situations that are far less obvious. I get that Messrs. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito vehemently disagree with the Constitutionality (and presumably the wisdom) of the bill. And I accept that a portion of the public agrees with them. That's fine. Agree to disagree and all that. But that argument is over. To use this typo as a stalking horse is disingenuous and dangerous. Kudos to Justice Kennedy for coming out on the obvious correct side on this one even if he disagreed with the Constitutionality of the law.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 25, 2015 12:25:58 GMT -5
Enlighten me. What's the absurd result? I'll engage: The absurd result is that the law ceases to function if the interpretation you advance is adopted. You couldn't possibly believe that the people who passed the bill intended that to occur. It simply doesn't make sense to have federally run exchanges if there is no tax benefit to doing so. I'm not sure there's a cogent argument to the contrary. Moreover, the interpretation runs counter to virtually every other time that tax treatment of the exchanges are mentioned in the act. So, that's the "interpret in context" part. This so clearly wasn't what was meant by the drafters of the law that I find it embarrassing that three Supreme Court justices bought the argument. This was a typo! Courts every day "reform" contracts or other instruments in situations that are far less obvious. I get that Messrs. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito vehemently disagree with the Constitutionality (and presumably the wisdom) of the bill. And I accept that a portion of the public agrees with them. That's fine. Agree to disagree and all that. But that argument is over. To use this typo as a stalking horse is disingenuous and dangerous. Kudos to Justice Kennedy for coming out on the obvious correct side on this one even if he disagreed with the Constitutionality of the law. The law does not cease to function, it just won't function nearly as well. That is not a problem for the courts to fix. The failure falls on the legislative branch. In this aspect, I wholly agree with Scalia: There is a perfectly reasonable argument as to why the Act was worded the way it was - an argument provided by the architect of the Act [or one of them], Jonathan Gruber:
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 25, 2015 12:27:25 GMT -5
KC, you're seriously disingenuous and obnoxious in most blue and gray threads you post in. The fact that this made it to the Supreme Court kind of shows there was an absurd result, doesn't it? I'm not really interested in engaging with you anymore. I actually enjoy hearing from people with other viewpoints. I don't like sifting through smug crap just to get there. I'll grant you obnoxious, but I don't think I'm ever disingenuous.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 25, 2015 12:44:20 GMT -5
This is the result that needed to happen for practical purposes.
Let no one forget the disgraceful birth of the ACA. That said, chaos would have ensued with any other result.
The lesson of this case and this law is that people really ought to read legislation before they vote on it.
Good for the Court for seeing the big picture here.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jun 25, 2015 12:45:00 GMT -5
I'll engage: The absurd result is that the law ceases to function if the interpretation you advance is adopted. You couldn't possibly believe that the people who passed the bill intended that to occur. It simply doesn't make sense to have federally run exchanges if there is no tax benefit to doing so. I'm not sure there's a cogent argument to the contrary. Moreover, the interpretation runs counter to virtually every other time that tax treatment of the exchanges are mentioned in the act. So, that's the "interpret in context" part. This so clearly wasn't what was meant by the drafters of the law that I find it embarrassing that three Supreme Court justices bought the argument. This was a typo! Courts every day "reform" contracts or other instruments in situations that are far less obvious. I get that Messrs. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito vehemently disagree with the Constitutionality (and presumably the wisdom) of the bill. And I accept that a portion of the public agrees with them. That's fine. Agree to disagree and all that. But that argument is over. To use this typo as a stalking horse is disingenuous and dangerous. Kudos to Justice Kennedy for coming out on the obvious correct side on this one even if he disagreed with the Constitutionality of the law. The law does not cease to function, it just won't function nearly as well. That is not a problem for the courts to fix. The failure falls on the legislative branch. In this aspect, I wholly agree with Scalia: There is a perfectly reasonable argument as to why the Act was worded the way it was - an argument provided by the architect of the Act [or one of them], Jonathan Gruber: Let's take the second first. Gruber is really the only person remotely involved in the drafting of the legislation to have had that opinion. It's undisputed that he's unaffiliated with either the legislative or executive branch (though he clearly was involved in the concept of the Act and advised those in government). Are you really going to hang your hat on what one guy says, when there are hundreds that say the opposite (and those hundreds include actual legislators and their direct aids)? So, suffice to say, I disagree that there's really an alternative reasonable interpretation. Saying that it "won't function nearly as well" is an understatement! There will be no functional exchanges in any state that doesn't have its own exchange. There's no real economic debate about that. That would lead the overall insurance markets among the states to become so unbalanced as to bring down the entire system. And we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether this is a problem for the courts to fix. When threatened with a situation where a democratically enacted law would be rendered unworkable due to a typo within that law, I would submit that the courts are obligated to act. What is most remarkable about this opinion, to further develop what someone earlier on in the thread wrote, is that Roberts rejects the use of so-called Chevron-deference, whereby the IRS is free to interpret the meaning of the law. No, he says, this is what this provision of the law means -- it's not subject to any executive agency's ability to interpret it. The more sly move would have been for Roberts to use Chevron deference as his touchstone, which would have left the door open for a future administration to instruct the IRS to interpret it differently. In other words, just winning the White House (without controlling every other branch) would have been enough to effectively undo the law. But Roberts rejected that -- clearly and vehemently. Very interesting.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Jun 25, 2015 14:17:03 GMT -5
What is most remarkable about this opinion, to further develop what someone earlier on in the thread wrote, is that Roberts rejects the use of so-called Chevron-deference, whereby the IRS is free to interpret the meaning of the law. No, he says, this is what this provision of the law means -- it's not subject to any executive agency's ability to interpret it. The more sly move would have been for Roberts to use Chevron deference as his touchstone, which would have left the door open for a future administration to instruct the IRS to interpret it differently. In other words, just winning the White House (without controlling every other branch) would have been enough to effectively undo the law. But Roberts rejected that -- clearly and vehemently. Very interesting. But not really surprising in view of his dissent in City of Arlington (although perhaps surprising given that it was just that: a dissent).
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 26, 2015 15:49:44 GMT -5
Stupid case should have never made it to SCOTUS. Despite Scalia himself engaging in interpretive jiggery-pokery in his dissenting opinion, this weak a$s, desperate case was dead from the jump.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jan 10, 2016 20:23:15 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 17, 2016 19:19:41 GMT -5
2015 was the first year that 90% of Americans have health insurance, thanks to ACA, and, of course, Obama!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:31:12 GMT -5
Strongly agree with hoyainspirit.
While I believe that ACA is poorly constructed, it did give access to health care to millions of those who couldn't afford it. I haven't seen any of those who oppose ACA come up for an alternative for those newly insured citizens and their families. I don't agree with Sanders on much, but I do agree that we need 100% access to health care. As an example, I have a relative who is dating a woman who has rheumatoid arthritis. She badly needs to be on a biologic such as humira, but can't afford the $18,000 to pay for it along with her other medical costs. Incidentally, she is working, butjust doesn't make enough to pay for this.
On another note-we DO need the government to step in an stop the outrageous ordering of inappropriate tests, and other procedures by physicians that is driving up the costs of health care.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 18, 2016 10:28:34 GMT -5
In other news, the labor market participation level in the United States is at a 39 year low. Last time it was this bad was under Jimmy Carter. Thanks Mr. Obama.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on May 18, 2016 10:37:26 GMT -5
I don't agree with Sanders on much, but I do agree that we need 100% access to health care. Why does Sanders get credit for this goal? There are a lot of ways to achieve 100% access - we could probably get mostly there if the holdout states would sign on to Medicaid expansion. Sanders only cares about getting there one way and his way is politically impossible when 46% of the country doesn't want it and 5% of the country is routinely scareable every time we try to expand coverage.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on May 18, 2016 10:39:36 GMT -5
In other news, the labor market participation level in the United States is at a 39 year low. Last time it was this bad was under Jimmy Carter. Thanks Mr. Obama. Yes, thank you Obama for the aging out of the baby boomers. I'm sure the birth demographics between the years 1946-1964 were all part of your plan.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 18, 2016 10:57:43 GMT -5
God bless the speed with which you defend your man. The steep decline in labor participation and the explosion of those living on the government dole are the logical result of his desire to expand the welfare/nanny state.
We should all have health care, cell phones, college, Ventes from Srarbucks, etc, etc. The only fly in his wonderful ointment is that those who produce are fast being outnumbered by those who only consume.
Even Boxer dropped dead...
|
|