D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare

[warpus]

Based on a very quick glance at wikipedia, there appears to have been a "letter of the law" vs "intent of the law" debate in your country in the past.

I guess "letter of the law" won out, but I didn't really read that far.

I just see "letter of the law" as inherently problematic, while "intent of the law", while having its own issues, to be a lot more workable. But I'm not really basing that on much other than my own personal thoughts. I have no idea where "intent of the law" has worked and which hasn't. A case study would be warranted at this stage, I guess, if I really cared to figure out what might work and what might not.

From my experience though a lot of American politicians don't give a crap at case studies at all, preferring to base everything on ideology. But I've been talking so much about America lately that people must be starting to think that I hate the country or something.. Nah, it's an awesome place and the people are for the most part cool. It's just that the subject comes up frequently, and I'm a critical person.

 

[bhsup]

Letter of the law can easily be fixed. All Congress has to do now is pass a law that allows federal exchanges to participate in subsidies. But hey, what if this -was- the intent of Congress and they refuse to pass such an alteration because they knew what their intent was the first time? If that is the case, then letter and intent are in sync.

 

[illram]

Divining the intent of the law, either through what other parts of it say in conjunction, or by what legislators say, or by how administrative agencies enforce the law, is still a valid means of statutory construction. Every Judge still tries to enforce laws based on what they think it actually means, but people just disagree on the best way to get there.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah see, judges shouldn't do that. They should enforce the law based on what it says, not their personal interpretation of what they think it should say and mean because they think they know better. That's not their job. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, they have no business altering it. "Divining the intent" man, that's almost as scary a phase as "God wills it."

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah see, judges shouldn't do that. They should enforce the law based on what it says, not their personal interpretation of what they think it should say and mean because they think they know better. That's not their job. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, they have no business altering it. "Divining the intent" man, that's almost as scary a phase as "God wills it."

I agree. The 2 judges in the majority focused too narrowly and were blinded by the language in the statute that allowed the Feds to create "such" exchanges.

 

[illram]

Yeah see, judges shouldn't do that. They should enforce the law based on what it says, not their personal interpretation of what they think it should say and mean because they think they know better. That's not their job. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, they have no business altering it. "Divining the intent" man, that's almost as scary a phase as "God wills it."

What I am talking about is enforcing the law as written. Sometimes people disagree on what a law means. What I explained was examples of the analytical process involved in determining what a law means. I agree Judges should not just change laws to say what they think they should say.

 

[JollyRoger]

We have judges declaring corporations next in line to heaven, so what do you expect?

 

[BvBPL]

Let's play this out. Assume the DC Circuit's holding wins over the opposite holdings from other circuits. 36 States are free from Obamacare's mandate and any tax subsidies.

You get a circuit split and the DC Circuit ruling affects, what, DC alone for the most part? Or does the DC Circuit trump the others for federal agencies?

Listen? Do you hear that? It is the sound of second year law student sharpening their knives to write about it for their law review notes.

The legislative intent was affordable healthcare for all Americans.

Plain reading should trump intent in statutory interpretation.

 

[illram]

You get a circuit split and the DC Circuit ruling affects, what, DC alone for the most part? Or does the DC Circuit trump the others for federal agencies?

Listen? Do you hear that? It is the sound of second year law student sharpening their knives to write about it for their law review notes.

Right now it affects no one. The implementation remains in procedural limbo for a while and you likely see no change anywhere until any en banc decision and subsequent (inevitable) appeal.

Plain reading should trump intent in statutory interpretation.

Context, young grasshopper.

 

[JollyRoger]

For the letter of the law/plain meaning crowd - does this language make polygamy legal or illegal? Explain how you reach your conclusion.

(a) Polygamy in this state shall consist only of the union of one person and more than one person of the opposite gender.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to polgamy.

 

[bhsup]

They are contradictory statements, Jolly. Not the same situation at all. And I am not sure if you intentionally misspelled polygamy in the second sentence or not, but if so it is also not the same as this was not a case of misspelling.

Clearly defined definitions used with no confusion except in the minds of those who want it to mean something else just because they don't like what is actually written is not in any way similar to the strawman comparison you give. Nice try, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

The misspelling was not intentional. Would you agree that (a) clearly defines and (b) clearly tells you what to do in regards of that definition?

 

[Berzerker]

even if the courts leave this alone the states with exchanges will be getting a huge subsidy and the pressure will mount for other states to get their share of the pot of gold

 

[bhsup]

Actually Jolly, I owe you an apology. For some reason I mentally read that first sentence as "(a) Marriage in this state shall..." and that's why I said they were contradictory because it seemed to be defining marriage is polygamy and then banning it, which was just weird. I thought you were just being odd...

So anyway, now that I have re-read it (and also given your typo was accidental) I will actually say that yes, it's valid. But amusingly all it has managed to do is outlaw heterosexual polygamy while leaving homosexual polygamy wide open. So if this is in one of the States with legalized gay marriage, gay polygamy is now a-okay per your wording. Looks like the legislature needs to go back and reword that one.

 

[JollyRoger]

What does this wording do?

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

 

[bhsup]

It outlaws heterosexual one man / one woman marriage. Are you trying to go somewhere with these?

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, that language outlaws gay marriage in Texas.

 

[bhsup]

Well they just outlawed heterosexual marriage as well. Way to go, Texas.

 

[JollyRoger]

You can't convince a Texas court of that. They start babbling on about context.

 

[onejayhawk]

Based on a very quick glance at wikipedia, there appears to have been a "letter of the law" vs "intent of the law" debate in your country in the past.

I guess "letter of the law" won out, but I didn't really read that far.

I just see "letter of the law" as inherently problematic, while "intent of the law", while having its own issues, to be a lot more workable. But I'm not really basing that on much other than my own personal thoughts. I have no idea where "intent of the law" has worked and which hasn't. A case study would be warranted at this stage, I guess, if I really cared to figure out what might work and what might not.

From my experience though a lot of American politicians don't give a crap at case studies at all, preferring to base everything on ideology. But I've been talking so much about America lately that people must be starting to think that I hate the country or something.. Nah, it's an awesome place and the people are for the most part cool. It's just that the subject comes up frequently, and I'm a critical person.

Actually not. The intent seems to have been to restrict this to the state exchanges. The miss was expecting 51 exchanges.

J