Amerikka loses and Obama Wins: SCOTUS upholds the ACA again.

[Jayjay]

I can point you to the specific language that says subsidies are available under exchanges established by a State.

Intent mongering has no place in this discussion.

"A state" can also refer to a nation--the federal government.

No, it can't. The bill has a very specific definition for it: Each of the 50 states and District of Columbia.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

"A state" can also refer to a nation--the federal government.

No, it can't. The bill has a very specific definition for it: Each of the 50 states and District of Columbia.

Well, it can refer to a nation. But the intent was so clear that only a pedantic fucking asshole, completely ignoring the obvious intent of the legislature and purpose of the legislation, would have ever bothered to read it any other way.

 

[zorq]

No, it can't. The bill has a very specific definition for it: Each of the 50 states and District of Columbia.

Well, it can refer to a nation. But the intent was so clear that only a pedantic fucking asshole, completely ignoring the obvious intent of the legislature and purpose of the legislation, would have ever bothered to read it any other way.

I will grant you that the word, when written, referred to the states, but it is a pleasant coincidence that the word has a broader definition which can be interpreted if clever and compassionate people choose to do so that the obvious intent of the broader legislation can be served and not be undone.

Undone by a combination of three missing words in the legislation and a series of conservative leaning state governments who prefer to deny their more unfortunate citizens access to more affordable health insurance options (even though it doesn't cost those states hardly any money).

I guess that the drafters of the bill should have considered the fact that Republican state leaders would sooner spit on their poorer constituents than offer them help up off the floor. They stay they are standing on principle but it's actually despicable.

And Republicans wonder how Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.

 

[RavenSky]

Well, it can refer to a nation. But the intent was so clear that only a pedantic fucking asshole, completely ignoring the obvious intent of the legislature and purpose of the legislation, would have ever bothered to read it any other way.

I will grant you that the word, when written, referred to the states, but it is a pleasant coincidence that the word has a broader definition which can be interpreted if clever and compassionate people choose to do so that the obvious intent of the broader legislation can be served and not be undone.

Undone by a combination of three missing words in the legislation and a series of conservative leaning state governments who prefer to deny their more unfortunate citizens access to more affordable health insurance options (even though it doesn't cost those states hardly any money).

I guess that the drafters of the bill should have considered the fact that Republican state leaders would sooner spit on their poorer constituents than offer them help up off the floor. They stay they are standing on principle but it's actually despicable.

And Republicans wonder how Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.

The only quibble I have with your comments above is that the Supreme Court ruling did absolutely nothing to protect ACA for the "poorer constituents". The particular issue ruled on actually protected middle class subsidies.

The "poorer constituents" are still being spit on by 21* Republican governors (or Republican controlled state legislators) who refused to expand Medicaid in their states.

* 2 of those Governors are reconsidering their positions.

 

[James Madison]

No, it can't. The bill has a very specific definition for it: Each of the 50 states and District of Columbia.

Well, it can refer to a nation. But the intent was so clear that only a pedantic fucking asshole, completely ignoring the obvious intent of the legislature and purpose of the legislation, would have ever bothered to read it any other way.

This ignores a very important rule of statutory construction, which the dissent heavily relied upon, which is the plain text meaning is paramount. J. Roberts does not express any disagreement with this principle, and even admits the plain text reading by the dissent and other jurists, is as he said "strong." However, J. Roberts entire majority opinion is a defense for ignoring or abandoning the plain text and deriving a meaning based on context and intent of Congress.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This ignores a very important rule of statutory construction, which the dissent heavily relied upon, which is the plain text meaning is paramount. J. Roberts does not express any disagreement with this principle, and even admits the plain text reading by the dissent and other jurists, is as he said "strong." However, J. Roberts entire majority opinion is a defense for ignoring or abandoning the plain text and deriving a meaning based on context and intent of Congress.

Well, isn't that what should happen?

If Congress says that they want to pass a bill which does X and then someone else comes along and says that the bill could potentially be interpreted to mean Y, so the Court asks Congress what it meant with the bill and it clarifies that it did indeed mean X, then the Court should interpret it as X.

 

[James Madison]

This ignores a very important rule of statutory construction, which the dissent heavily relied upon, which is the plain text meaning is paramount. J. Roberts does not express any disagreement with this principle, and even admits the plain text reading by the dissent and other jurists, is as he said "strong." However, J. Roberts entire majority opinion is a defense for ignoring or abandoning the plain text and deriving a meaning based on context and intent of Congress.

Well, isn't that what should happen?

If Congress says that they want to pass a bill which does X and then someone else comes along and says that the bill could potentially be interpreted to mean Y, so the Court asks Congress what it meant with the bill and it clarifies that it did indeed mean X, then the Court should interpret it as X.

No. Unwritten congressional intent isn't the law but instead the written law is the law in a government where what the legislature passes as law, in written form, is the law.

Where the plain text has X meaning, there isn't any need to resort to meaning Y which isn't found in the plain text but hidden in congressional intent and context.

 

[KeepTalking]

"Punish" is my characterization of their motives, their intent.

Oh, so such an intent is not actually explicit in the ACA, as you previously contended, but is rather a characterization. When the SCOTUS starts paying attention to the characterizations made by random internet posters, get back to me.

If, as you now agree, plain text is the best indication of intent

I don't recall making any such agreement. It was more of an acceptance for the sake of argument.

then it is obvious: it plainly states authorization of benefits for exchanges established by the States. It does not authorize the same benefits for federal exchanges.

How's that for "specific language"?

Not good enough for the SCOTUS.

Except I never stated that the word "punish" was in the ACA text, only that given its wording, structure, and legislative history the intentions behind the explicit text are obvious. What is only "good enough" for the scotus majority is that the law must be sacrificed to save ACA.

This is clearly a case where the pivotal votes (Roberts and Kennedy) felt compelled to avoid a political meltdown and fallout from bad policy making.

Well, let's leave aside the specific wording of the single sentence, then, as that is a bone of contention. You claim two other points that you feel bolster your case, so let's concentrate on those. Please inform me as to how the structure and legislative history of the ACA conveys the meaning that the ACA is meant to "punish" anyone for anything.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, isn't that what should happen?

If Congress says that they want to pass a bill which does X and then someone else comes along and says that the bill could potentially be interpreted to mean Y, so the Court asks Congress what it meant with the bill and it clarifies that it did indeed mean X, then the Court should interpret it as X.

No. Unwritten congressional intent isn't the law but instead the written law is the law in a government where what the legislature passes as law, in written form, is the law.

Where the plain text has X meaning, there isn't any need to resort to meaning Y which isn't found in the plain text but hidden in congressional intent and context.

I disagree that the plain text has X meaning. It has an interpretation that it could have X meaning. It could also have Y meaning. When the meaning has a potential dispute, what the people who wrote it say they meant to say is far more important than what some other people thought they meant to say.

 

[SimpleDon]

What stands out in my mind here is that most of liberal posters here do not even understand what the ruling was about. It did not challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare and would not have eliminated Obamacare.

The law was poorly drafted. It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

No Bill, it is absolutely the job of the courts to determine the meaning of legislation. In this regard they of course pay attention to the intent of Congress in passing the law. Clearly the intent of the law was to expand health care insurance coverage to lower income Americans by subsidizing the health insurance companies to do it.

Congress also clearly intended that all Medicaid would be expended in all fifty states because they mandated this. It was only because the SCOTUS ruled that this was an efront to the poorly defined concept of states' rights* that states could opt out of expanding Medicaid that this four word misspeak became into question.

I suppose that your distrust of courts trying to determine the intent of the drafters also extends to recent attempts to determine the intent of the drafters of the Constitution by the reactionary members of the court, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito. I also join you in questioning these attempts to "question the dead," but not because the courts shouldn't try to determine intent but because it is obvious that the drafters of the Constitution intended for the wording in the Constitution to be ambiguous. They had to in order to get it ratified by the many different states with so many competing interests with each other. It is this very same ambiguity that has allowed our Constitution to serve us so well for so long.


* SCOTUS recently decided that states have no right to ban pistol sales for example, something that they had been able to do for more than two hundred years or more. There is hardly a piece of federal legislation that doesn't mandate that the states do something. It is the idea behind the federal government having supremacy over the states.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My manager stormed out of his office this afternoon, shouting that they'd appeal this decision.

Another constitutional scholar....

Does God listen to appeals?

Yes, but he never actually DOES anything about it.

It's sort of like appealing to the Queen of England. You might get her to agree with you, but at the end of the day nobody really cares what she thinks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This ignores a very important rule of statutory construction, which the dissent heavily relied upon, which is the plain text meaning is paramount. J. Roberts does not express any disagreement with this principle, and even admits the plain text reading by the dissent and other jurists, is as he said "strong." However, J. Roberts entire majority opinion is a defense for ignoring or abandoning the plain text and deriving a meaning based on context and intent of Congress.

Well, isn't that what should happen?

If Congress says that they want to pass a bill which does X and then someone else comes along and says that the bill could potentially be interpreted to mean Y, so the Court asks Congress what it meant with the bill and it clarifies that it did indeed mean X, then the Court should interpret it as X.

The party that passed the Republican plan is also the party executing it. Yet it is the other party trying to saying the letter isn't being followed, not the people that passed the bill.

 

[James Madison]

No. Unwritten congressional intent isn't the law but instead the written law is the law in a government where what the legislature passes as law, in written form, is the law.

Where the plain text has X meaning, there isn't any need to resort to meaning Y which isn't found in the plain text but hidden in congressional intent and context.

I disagree that the plain text has X meaning. It has an interpretation that it could have X meaning. It could also have Y meaning. When the meaning has a potential dispute, what the people who wrote it say they meant to say is far more important than what some other people thought they meant to say.

Well, you can disagree but the facts do not support your agreement. The statute defined the word "State" and the definition did not include the federal government. This is why Justice Roberts conceded there was indeed a plain text meaning and the argument for the meaning and to follow the meaning is a strong argument. Justice Roberts' opinion is then a justification as to why they aren't following the plain text.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree that the plain text has X meaning. It has an interpretation that it could have X meaning. It could also have Y meaning. When the meaning has a potential dispute, what the people who wrote it say they meant to say is far more important than what some other people thought they meant to say.

Well, you can disagree but the facts do not support your agreement. The statute defined the word "State" and the definition did not include the federal government. This is why Justice Roberts conceded there was indeed a plain text meaning and the argument for the meaning and to follow the meaning is a strong argument. Justice Roberts' opinion is then a justification as to why they aren't following the plain text.

As the Court said, if the definition of the word didn't include the possibility of the federal government, then all the parts in the bill regarding tax credits and the like for exchanges wouldn't make any sense. The coverage requirement doesn't work without tax credits so they need to be available where there's only a federal exchange. That means they're available for federal exchanges.

Your notion that the text of the ACA is put together well enough that the concepts in it aren't ambiguous is just kind of nonsensical.

 

[bilby]

While law is written in English, the probability that ANY law has one, and only one, 'plain text meaning' is close to zero.

Even the phrase 'plain text meaning' is open to interpretation.

That's why judges are paid the big bucks.

 

[dismal]

While law is written in English, the probability that ANY law has one, and only one, 'plain text meaning' is close to zero.

Even the phrase 'plain text meaning' is open to interpretation.

That's why judges are paid the big bucks.

Are you suggesting all possible interpretations of text are equally valid?

Why should be bother having a legislature at all?

Once you've passed one law unelected judges can determine it means whatever they think is best thereafter.

Though, of course, if we follow the path of "meaning" nihilism a step further, I suppose we could also disagree over what the USSC opinions say too.

When I read the majority opinion of King v. Burwell I find that it means "Obamacare is canceled except in Canada and we all get a pony".

Then I suppose the meaning-mongering goes on and on until the one with the most guns decides what we do.

 

[fromderinside]

Then I suppose the meaning-mongering goes on and on until the one with the most guns decides what we do.

I certainly can't agree with you on what criteria should be used to decide what we, someone, it, should do. I'm sure number of guns is wrong. How about number of people with trigger fingers and bullets, or, number of women who can cook, or ,number of boys who can keep time, or, number of ribbons around oak trees in Tuscaloosa?

 

[dismal]

Then I suppose the meaning-mongering goes on and on until the one with the most guns decides what we do.

I certainly can't agree with you on what criteria should be used to decide what we, someone, it, should do. I'm sure number of guns is wrong. How about number of people with trigger fingers and bullets, or, number of women who can cook, or ,number of boys who can keep time, or, number of ribbons around oak trees in Tuscaloosa?

I interpret that as you completely agreeing with me.

Unless you have a gun.

 

[James Madison]

Well, you can disagree but the facts do not support your agreement. The statute defined the word "State" and the definition did not include the federal government. This is why Justice Roberts conceded there was indeed a plain text meaning and the argument for the meaning and to follow the meaning is a strong argument. Justice Roberts' opinion is then a justification as to why they aren't following the plain text.

As the Court said, if the definition of the word didn't include the possibility of the federal government, then all the parts in the bill regarding tax credits and the like for exchanges wouldn't make any sense. The coverage requirement doesn't work without tax credits so they need to be available where there's only a federal exchange. That means they're available for federal exchanges.

Your notion that the text of the ACA is put together well enough that the concepts in it aren't ambiguous is just kind of nonsensical.

No, we are discussing the plain text meaning as opposed to abandoning the plain text meaning for a contextual meaning derived by the various parts of the bill. The fact the plain text of the law defines the meaning of the word state, as conceded by the majority, "After all the Act defines "State" to mean "each of the 50'states and the District of Columbia"- a definition that does not include the Federal Government." The statute clearly defines state in an unambiguous manner, as noted above in language from the majority decision. This statutory meaning isn't ambiguous and the argument this meaning is ambiguous is non-sensical.

Hence, Roberts espouses a majority decision as to why abandoning the plain text meaning of the word "state" is permissible.

 

[dismal]

I certainly can't agree with you on what criteria should be used to decide what we, someone, it, should do. I'm sure number of guns is wrong. How about number of people with trigger fingers and bullets, or, number of women who can cook, or ,number of boys who can keep time, or, number of ribbons around oak trees in Tuscaloosa?

I interpret that as you completely agreeing with me.

Unless you have a gun.

I also interpret it as you saying you owe me 20 bucks.