guns

[bbsam]

What you don't seem to get is that under no circumstances is the SCOTUS allowed to legislate from the bench.

They are to go by the letter, or the intent of the law only.

Not a difficult concept for most people to grasp.

Again, ruling on the constitutionality of a law is not "legislating from the bench". Laws ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court can be revisited, rewritten and resubmitted to the Executive branch. Laws that are found to be constitutional are not changed and stand as law unless repealed by the legislature.

 

[bbsam]

he'll be asking another question shortly...

Incorrect again.

 

[oldngray]

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.

Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority rewrote it
http://aclj.org/obamacare/supreme-court-again-rewrites-obamacare-without-constitutional-authority

 

[bbsam]

What you don't seem to get is that under no circumstances is the SCOTUS allowed to legislate from the bench.

They are to go by the letter, or the intent of the law only.

Not a difficult concept for most people to grasp.

And while your at it (and to make Dr. Brown happy) where is the binding regulation that determines the extent and force of Supreme Court ruling? Maybe the fact is that for all intents and purposes, the Court has every right to "legislate from the bench".

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.

Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority rewrote it
http://aclj.org/obamacare/supreme-court-again-rewrites-obamacare-without-constitutional-authority

Could you point me to the exact text of the law that SCOTUS rewrote?
Specifically the text before and after they rewrote it.

 

[bbsam]

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.

Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority rewrote it
http://aclj.org/obamacare/supreme-court-again-rewrites-obamacare-without-constitutional-authority

You found a piece that supports your position. Amazing.

However, they rewrote nothing. They may have interpreted the meaning of the law but that is their right.

Again, the legislature can repeal and replace with what they prefer. It's legal stuff. Courts do it all the time.

 

[bbsam]

Could you point me to the exact text of the law that SCOTUS rewrote?
Specifically the text before and after they rewrote it.

No.

 

[realbrown1]

No.

Did he ask you?

No.

So let the man answer the question himself and stop being a troll.

 

[bbsam]

Did he ask you?

No.

So let the man answer the question himself and stop being a troll.

Well we're still waiting for @oldngray to answer, so I'm guessing I'm right...again.

 

[oldngray]

Since you complain when I post links I will let you google it yourself. I already proved your previous point wrong. You just refuse to admit it.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Since you complain when I post links I will let you google it yourself. I already proved your previous point wrong. You just refuse to admit it.

I did, best I can tell Scotus didn't change a word. Every link I found claiming they did failed to provide the text they changed. So it seems you've been lied to, and then you came on here repeating those lies, which makes you look like a sucker. How does that make you feel?

 

[bbsam]

Since you complain when I post links I will let you google it yourself. I already proved your previous point wrong. You just refuse to admit it.

You may as well have posted a link to another BC post.

 

[bbsam]

I did, best I can tell Scotus didn't change a word. Every link I found claiming they did failed to provide the text they changed. So it seems you've been lied to, and then you came on here repeating those lies, which makes you look like a sucker. How does that make you feel?

It's easier than thinking.

 

[oldngray]

I did, best I can tell Scotus didn't change a word. Every link I found claiming they did failed to provide the text they changed. So it seems you've been lied to. How does that make you feel?

Try harder. Scotus re-interpreted and changed the meaning of what was written. Otherwise they would have had to rule it unconstitutional.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.

Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority rewrote it

Try harder. Scotus re-interpreted and changed the meaning of what was written. Otherwise they would have had to rule it unconstitutional.

So you agree with me that they didn't rewrite it like you originally claimed?
I don't like the law, but people like you who just make stuff up are the reason no one takes conservatives seriously.

 

[oldngray]

I notice you refuse to address any of the points mentioned in my link. Just attack the source as usual. Typical liberal behavior.

 

[bbsam]

I notice you refuse to address any of the points mentioned in my link. Just attack the source as usual. Typical liberal behavior.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

 

[realbrown1]

I did, best I can tell Scotus didn't change a word. Every link I found claiming they did failed to provide the text they changed. So it seems you've been lied to, and then you came on here repeating those lies, which makes you look like a sucker. How does that make you feel?

You don't have to change the words to change the interpretation of the law.

You didn't know this?

That would explain a lot.

 

[The Other Side]

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.

Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority rewrote it
http://aclj.org/obamacare/supreme-court-again-rewrites-obamacare-without-constitutional-authority

You provide an "opinion" piece from a conservative as to the motives and understandings of the Scotus justices??

Jay Sekulow is a christian right wing fanatic, he is also a lawyer who has been in front of many cases at the supreme court and lost. He is a right wing loon primarily hired for his opinions by fox news.

Get serious Oldy, even morelock would know this was just a sore loser providing a bandaid to the butthurt the republicans suffered when the scotus approved the ACA.

TOS.

 

[realbrown1]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

What a liberal FLUFF piece.

Pure garbage.