Posted on 07/22/2014 11:15:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Fed Appeals trumps circuit all day
a literal reading of the statute undoubtedly accords more closely with their [the plaintifs] position.
Gosh. Who ever interprets the words in a law or contract literally? /s
They really think we are that stupid. Sadly, enough of us are. Those three judges have no respect for the meaning of words or the rule of law. Why should I?
These judges are insulting our intelligence.
“You have to pass the bill to have no idea what it means.”
But won't SCOTUS wait until the matter has been finally decided in the DC Circuit?
I don't agree that the judicial torment has to do with the meaning of a clearly worded clause in the law.
The torment arises over how far to compromise ones honesty, dignity and self respect when bending over backwards to protect the incompetent and feckless airhead we have as president.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Judicial Circuit stands on the same level as The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. One does not trump the other. The three levels of the Federal Judiciary are: District Courts, Courts of Appeals (one for each Judicial Circuit, and The Supreme Court.
It is just a new expensive welfare scheme
bttt
Yet another assault on America by Judicial Activists.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."
"The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."
In other words, party affiliation and activism is what these clown “judges” use to make their decisions. Our “judicial” system is the biggest circus to ever come down the pike.
The court could deny an appeal and make both the 4th and the DC Circuit go en banc, but it's probably unlikely. I'd bet on a stay of the DC Circuit's decision and an accepted appeal by SCOTUS. Then we'll see if the Obots still have the blackmail photos of Chief Justice Roberts.
There was a time when courts refused to try to read stuff into poorly drafted legislation and would just uphold the letter of the law and advise the legislature that if they actually intended something different than what was written, that they amend the law accordingly.
These courts know that there is no way even a word of this law is going to get “amended” without a complete overhaul, they are forcing interprtations that will rescue the law rather than leaving it up to congress to fix it.
This is a dishonest opinion.
So basically as I read and understand this everything gets kicked back to the IRS for them to make good decisions on wording interpretation.
What could possibly go wrong?
This reminds me of how "tormented" Bill Clinton was when he asked if being "alone" with Monica Lewinksy meant "alone in the Oval Office," or "alone in the larger West Wing?"
Someone is sure to argue that when Congress meant "established by the state," they didn't mean the sovereign states in the Constitution, they meant the larger "federal state of the union."
-PJ
“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.”I don’t much care where ” said Alice.”Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.” so long as I get somewhere,” Alice added as an explanation.”Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0
saw this on a comment from another board.. worth a watch.
“Jonathan Gruber, ACA architect, on video, at the 31:30 minute mark, stating for the public to know that without a State exchange, there are no subsidies”
Who’d have thought that unclear pronouns could be the downfall of Obamacare?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.