Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GIdget2004
Scalia's dissent is scathing:

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.

“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.”

The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

272 posted on 06/25/2015 7:44:34 AM PDT by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Timocrat
“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.”

Scalia is one of those radical right wing extremist judges who thinks the law says what it says./s

317 posted on 06/25/2015 7:53:31 AM PDT by NJRighty ("It's sick out there and getting sicker" - Bob Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies ]

To: Timocrat
Scalia has a way with words. However, his appeal to "honest jurisprudence" is misplaced. All this case does is create additional precedents, even though there are already enough precedents to allow any outcome, in any case, to be selected and justified by a court.

All jurisprudence is outcome oriented. The law and constitution haven't had any meaning other than that voiced by appellate courts and bureaucracies, for the last 100 years.

322 posted on 06/25/2015 7:54:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson