Wonderful, so we have no law, simply what the next king thinks the law should be.
I would give a left nut to know what they have on Roberts. His previous opinion would embarrass Joe Biden.
Somewhat similar to putting up a sign that says “SPEED LIMIT” without any number given.
Each police officer could simply decide what the speed limit is at any given time even change it from one person to the next.
The fact the ACA “law” can be changed from day to day is what makes it unconstitutional.
There is no way anyone knows from day to day what the “law” is.
What you can do one day you can’t the next but you can the day after that.
[[Wonderful, so we have no law, simply what the next king thinks the law should be.]]
and therein lies the insidiousness of Robert’s betrayal to the US (Remember, he made the asinine statement that the supreme court’s job was not to protect the people from their vote)-
The way this country is going, we will In the near future have a PERMANENT liberal president because of all the ‘free stuff’ they promise- including health care- the people will be afraid of electing a conservative thinking that they might lose their ‘free HC’ if a republican takes office and reinterprets the law to suit his agenda-
IF Roberts doesn’t rule correctly, and strike this friggin HC law down NOW- this country is doomed!
The Justices were talking about the Chevron case, a Supreme Court decision from 1984. Chevron says that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts must enforce it as written, but if the statute is ambiguous, the courts must defer to administrative regulations construing the statute, so long as the regulation is "reasonable," even if the court thinks the administrative interpretation is not the most reasonable one, and even if the administrative agency changes its interpretation from a prior interpretation. (I'm not a big fan of the Chevron rule, but it's been repeatedly reaffirmed by SCOTUS over the past 20 years.)