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

[fromderinside]

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 do. but I don't have bullets. However I have a very sharp foil with which I'm very skilled, I'm also pretty good at chess. I can drop rocks and hot oil from most any rampart.

 

[dismal]

I interpret that as you completely agreeing with me.

Unless you have a gun.

I do. but I don't have bullets. However I have a very sharp foil with which I'm very skilled, I'm also pretty good at chess. I can drop rocks and hot oil from most any rampart.

I don't see any particular reason to accept your interpretations of meanings in there. If you get some bullets let me know.

 

[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.

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

No.

But I find it ironic that you misinterpreted my post as saying that, given that it was not what I actually said.

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.

Well, they are certainly capable of being ambiguously worded if the Judges are incautious.

But of course, that doesn't imply that they must always be ambiguous; nor that any interpretation is equally valid.

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.

That's no more absurd than claiming that all English texts must have one, and only one, clear and plain meaning.

Both extreme positions are, as is often the case, absurd; arguing that one must be right because the other is absurd is simply the fallacy of the excluded middle that we so often see in political discussions.

There are other options than 'any interpretation is equally valid' and 'only one interpretation is ever possible'

 

[dismal]

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

No.

But I find it ironic that you misinterpreted my post as saying that, given that it was not what I actually said.

Why shouldn't I be able to interpret your post however I want?

 

[dismal]

That's no more absurd than claiming that all English texts must have one, and only one, clear and plain meaning.

OK, so In this particular case we are talking about the word "state" which was precisely and unambiguously defined in the statute in a way that did not include the federal government.

 

[bilby]

No.

But I find it ironic that you misinterpreted my post as saying that, given that it was not what I actually said.

Why shouldn't I be able to interpret your post however I want?

Because ambiguity is not synonymous with meaninglessness.

- - - Updated - - -

That's no more absurd than claiming that all English texts must have one, and only one, clear and plain meaning.

OK, so In this particular case we are talking about the word "state" which was precisely and unambiguously defined in the statute in a way that did not include the federal government.

Yes. I know.

And yet, given that there is widespread discussion of this; and given that the SCOTUS has ruled that the meaning of the law overrules the definition of that word, your claim that it was "precisely and unambiguously defined" is either false, or irrelevant, or both.

 

[dismal]

Why shouldn't I be able to interpret your post however I want?

Because ambiguity is not synonymous with meaninglessness.

There comes a point where they converge. As in, when you claim the word "state" which has been clearly defined as one of the 50 states plus DC also means the federal government.

At this point on the continuum there is no difference between "ambiguous" and "meaningless". It is not ambiguous at all.

 

[bilby]

Because ambiguity is not synonymous with meaninglessness.

There comes a point where they converge. As in, when you claim the word "state" which has been clearly defined as one of the 50 states plus DC also means the federal government.

At this point on the continuum there is no difference between "ambiguous" and "meaningless". It is not ambiguous at all.

If that were true, whence the debate?

There are those who claim that the definition of one word overrules the clear intent of the legislature; and those who claim that the opposite applies.

Fortunately, your constitution provides for a means to make a definitive ruling where there is such disagreement - it is voted on by the Supreme Court.

That vote has been taken. The ruling has been made.

If you don't like it, elect a legislature that will pass a new law that explicitly overturns the ruling.

Until you do, that's the law.

No matter whether you like it or loathe it.

 

[fromderinside]

Because ambiguity is not synonymous with meaninglessness.

There comes a point where they converge. As in, when you claim the word "state" which has been clearly defined as one of the 50 states plus DC also means the federal government.

At this point on the continuum there is no difference between "ambiguous" and "meaningless". It is not ambiguous at all.

Your arguments have as much weight as do the losing arguments on the topic at the supreme court. The law relative to the word 'state' in ACA has been jjudged other than what you claim. So your dictionary and rationalization tour, as compelling as you believe it to be, is dust in the wind, blown away by judicial fiat!

 

[dismal]

There comes a point where they converge. As in, when you claim the word "state" which has been clearly defined as one of the 50 states plus DC also means the federal government.

At this point on the continuum there is no difference between "ambiguous" and "meaningless". It is not ambiguous at all.

If that were true, whence the debate?

Oh, it's true. There is no debate except that some wish it not to say what it says and got some judges to go along with it.

There are those who claim that the definition of one word overrules the clear intent of the legislature; and those who claim that the opposite applies.

This defies legal precedent. It is not the job of judges to guess at intent and use it to trump specific language adopted by congress. Interpreting laws not equal amending them.

Fortunately, your constitution provides for a means to make a definitive ruling where there is such disagreement - it is voted on by the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution says the legislature makes the laws. And as a rational person I do not accept the infallibility of the Supreme Court. Indeed when people resort to this appeal to authority argument I consider it a good sign the legal rationale for the decision was weak, which in this case obviously it was.

 

[bilby]

If that were true, whence the debate?

Oh, it's true. There is no debate except that some wish it not to say what it says and got some judges to go along with it.

There are those who claim that the definition of one word overrules the clear intent of the legislature; and those who claim that the opposite applies.

This defies legal precedent. It is not the job of judges to guess at intent and use it to trump specific language adopted by congress. Interpreting laws not equal amending them.

It is not the job of random self-appointed 'experts' on the Internet to tell Supreme Court Justices what their job is. If five out of nine Supreme Court Justices think that is their job, then I shall take their opinion over yours.

Fortunately, your constitution provides for a means to make a definitive ruling where there is such disagreement - it is voted on by the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution says the legislature makes the laws. And as a rational person I do not accept the infallibility of the Supreme Court. Indeed when people resort to this appeal to authority argument I consider it a good sign the legal rationale for the decision was weak, which in this case obviously it was.

Nobody suggested that the Supreme Court was infallible; But they are the final arbiters of the law. No further judicial appeals are possible, so if you dislike their decision, then your options are pretty much limited to voting in a legislature that will explicitly write a law that cancels out their decision.

It is not a fallacy to point out that the authority vested in the Supreme Court exists. They have the authority; it was appealed to; and they made a ruling. When people resort to calling this legal process an "this appeal to authority argument" I consider it a good sign that their grasp of the law is weak.

Courts interpret law. If you don't like their rulings, you can appeal - all the way up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court rulings are final. If they get it wrong, then the legislature can pass new laws to correct the error.

 

[dismal]

they are the final arbiters of the law.

tip: This is not the argument we are having. I have not take a position opposite of this.