DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
14 comments:
Looks like he is about to behead him. They may have just done that yesterday.
thats what is happening to this country. thanks sjd
If any of you actually understood statutory interpretation you'd understand why Roberts was absolutely right and why Scalia's "quip-filled" dissent doesn't logically make a modicum of sense. In fact, Roberts points it out to everyone by citing Scalia's earlier dissent to the first ACA challenge two years ago, discussing how the Court doesn't interpret Congress to have enacted statutes that have no viability. Thus, the only one in the wrong here is Scalia - he's allowed his hubris and his political persuasion to lead him into a trap exposing his inconsistent reasoning.
I agree with the depiction.
One step closer to revolution. Yes I agree.
11:11: Thank you for the intellectual honesty.
11:11 - Have some more Kool-Aid. Then go get a tutor and learn how to read!
NO, I DON'T agree. The first problem with this situation is NOBODY should be elected FOR LIFE to any position. I view this as short-sighted on the part of the Constitutionalists. Their own constituency told the truth as they believe internally that the panel has grown in power to an uncontrollable and irreplaceable final authority. Instead of quoting the 'rights issues', what about the rights of the States to individually control the conduct of its citizens, they've invoked the same brand of socialism we fought the Germans about.
If a lifetime employee, and that's what they are, has NO relievable oversight, they just plain get too damn comfortable in their authority and there-in lies the problem. A Holier than Thou complex snow-balls and then they become LEGAL ANARCHISTS. This is the product that was conjured by electing liberal Presidents who stack the deck with Half-Assed, Second rate jurists that will circumvent Congressional procedure to push the Liberal Agenda. Lessons to be learned???? Its a shame they DON'T know their damn 'place' as I do mine. Bob Aswell... Fair minded American
11:11
Gay marriage and they ACA are two separate issues dirived from two seperate sources. The ACA is a tax and congress has the authority to pass a tax; thats why the SC upheld the law. The ruling on gay marriage is legislation from the bench, which Scalia is agaisnt.congress is supposed to legislate not the courts. Hence the cartoon.
Add a turban, and a scimitar to Roberts, then it is right!
I just hope that now these gays will leave those who do not wish to participate in their ceremony alone and not continue to seek to destroy the businesses.
These gays act like this because in their hearts they know that they are committing a grave sin and no one likes to be told they are sinners. They need to face the facts and come to grips with the facts and that is that they are sinners for living that lifestyle as we all sin in one way or another. If they accept that they won't be so uptight and out to seek to destroy those who wish to not participate in their sinful ways.
Remember Jesus loved the sinner but he never ever participated or enabled them to sin. Gays would benefit and become better people if they not tried to force people to do what they believe is a sin. They are no better than ISIS when they seek to destroy. No better at all and decent people will not respect them if they don't straighten up and start acting civilized.
11:11
LOL
You think your law degree gives you the gravitas to call Justice Scalia's remarks mere "quips?"
How many cases have you litigated at SC?
I'm thinking ZERO.
Go back to DU troll.
Your wrong.
12:11 - if you paid attention to the cartoon, you would understand it's in reference to the Burwell decision of yesterday, not today's gay marriage decision. Roberts (the man depicted in the cartoon) was in today's dissent; thus, it would make no logical sense for a conservative cartoon to say that he is terrorizing America if he is dissenting from an opinion that deals a blow to conservative values (then again, today's conservatives have a hard time keeping track of their hypocrisy, so who even knows). Also, it's spelled "separate."
As to 11:51 - let's go through the two opinions, shall we? Scalia admits in his dissent to the first ACA case (Sebelius) that “'[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .' or judicially rewriting it." Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2651 (2012). While you might reasonably argue this means that "exchange established by the State" is quite literally meant to mean "a single state (i.e. Maryland, etc), this would be doing violence to the purpose behind the statute - which Scalia later admits is to "mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage...." Id. Notice, he makes no remarks about maintaining that coverage solely through State exchanges. Do you know why? Because that was never contemplated by Congress. Congress writes laws, not Justice Scalia.
Second, as Roberts himself quotes, Scalia explicitly states in the Sebelius opinion that, "Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all." Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. at 2674 (2012). As I stated in my earlier remark, a logical understanding of Scalia's point here - given widely accepted canons of statutory interpretation that Mr. Scalia should have learned his first year of law school - is that the term "established by the State" should be interpreted in a way to uphold Congress's intent, which is that the federal subsidies are available to all individuals. It's really quite simple, even if Mr. Scalia has forgotten that in his now inconsistent dissent.
If you have any more questions or even if Joe would allow it I would be happy to potentially discuss this in an article for SbyNews to explain why, especially given Roberts's dissent today, he is really not abandoning all you conservatives, even though it may feel like it. I will no longer be responding to ad hominem attacks, however.
Post a Comment