Little-Acorn
03-24-2015, 11:12 AM
Interesting.
When the Obamacare mandate came before the Supremes a few years ago, it clearly said that there would be "penalties" for not signing up, using that word, in 18 different places in the law. It said that because the Obamanites assured balky Democrat congressmen that there were absolutely no new taxes anywhere in the law. Some of those congressmen would not have voted for it if there had been any new taxes in it, and it would have been voted down instead of passed. (The Supreme Court later ruled that such penalites are flatly unconstitutional).
The ink was barely dry on the vote count when those same Obamanites were in court swearing that there were NO PENALTIES in the law at all, that they were really taxes, which Congress has the Constitutional power to levy.
What the Supreme Court should have done, of course, was strike down the law and hand it back to Congress, with a note that said, "Fine, if those are taxes, then re-write the law saying that's what they are, and re-vote and pass it with taxes instead of penalties. And we'll then rule it constitutional."
History records that they didn't, of course. They rewrote it themselves from the bench, substituting "taxes" for "penalties", and did NOT subject the rewritten law to another Conngressional vote despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.
Justice Kennedy dissented from that decision. But he was one of only four, and the law was ruled "constitutional" in a 5-4 decision.
Fast forward to 2015. Now the issue is the Fed govt giving subsidies to people in states that did not set up their own exchanges (which the law says the Fed cannot do). Will Kennedy once again say, "If Congress wants the non-exchange states to get subsidies, Congress must re-write the law to say so, and re-vote on the new version"?
And will the leftist justices (including Roberts) simply re-write the law themselves from the bench, instead of obeying the Constitution and requiring Congress to do it and vote again on the new version?
From what Kennedy said just now, it sounds like at least he will obey the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/justice-kennedy-s-comments-stir-the-tea-leaves-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo
Justice Kennedy's Comments Stir the Tea Leaves on Obamacare
Mar 23, 2015 4:01 PM PDT
Was the justice hinting at his vote on the King v. Burwell case when he spoke to a congressional panel?
by Greg Stohr
A Supreme Court justice wouldn’t use a congressional hearing to signal his vote on Obamacare, would he?
Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers that the justices should interpret statutes without worrying about congressional gridlock.
Kennedy didn’t specifically mention the Affordable Care Act, but his comments prompted immediate speculation that he will read the law as barring crucial tax subsidies to insurance purchasers in two-thirds of the country–leaving it to the president and Congress to negotiate what would seem an unlikely fix.
“We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government.”
—Justice Anthony Kennedy
Eric Segall, an Obamacare backer who teaches at Georgia State University College of Law, quickly responded on Twitter:
Eric Segall @espinsegall
Follow
Kennedy just said a dysfunctional Congress is no reason Court shouldn't send laws back to them to "fix." Uggggggggghh
1:11 PM - 23 Mar 2015
19 Retweets 4 favorites
"This does not bode well for the government," blogged Josh Blackman, an Obamacare critic who teaches at South Texas College of Law.
Kennedy voted to invalidate the law three years ago when the court considered a broad constitutional challenge. He dissented as Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four Democratic appointees to uphold the measure.
When the Obamacare mandate came before the Supremes a few years ago, it clearly said that there would be "penalties" for not signing up, using that word, in 18 different places in the law. It said that because the Obamanites assured balky Democrat congressmen that there were absolutely no new taxes anywhere in the law. Some of those congressmen would not have voted for it if there had been any new taxes in it, and it would have been voted down instead of passed. (The Supreme Court later ruled that such penalites are flatly unconstitutional).
The ink was barely dry on the vote count when those same Obamanites were in court swearing that there were NO PENALTIES in the law at all, that they were really taxes, which Congress has the Constitutional power to levy.
What the Supreme Court should have done, of course, was strike down the law and hand it back to Congress, with a note that said, "Fine, if those are taxes, then re-write the law saying that's what they are, and re-vote and pass it with taxes instead of penalties. And we'll then rule it constitutional."
History records that they didn't, of course. They rewrote it themselves from the bench, substituting "taxes" for "penalties", and did NOT subject the rewritten law to another Conngressional vote despite the Constitution requiring that they do so.
Justice Kennedy dissented from that decision. But he was one of only four, and the law was ruled "constitutional" in a 5-4 decision.
Fast forward to 2015. Now the issue is the Fed govt giving subsidies to people in states that did not set up their own exchanges (which the law says the Fed cannot do). Will Kennedy once again say, "If Congress wants the non-exchange states to get subsidies, Congress must re-write the law to say so, and re-vote on the new version"?
And will the leftist justices (including Roberts) simply re-write the law themselves from the bench, instead of obeying the Constitution and requiring Congress to do it and vote again on the new version?
From what Kennedy said just now, it sounds like at least he will obey the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/justice-kennedy-s-comments-stir-the-tea-leaves-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo
Justice Kennedy's Comments Stir the Tea Leaves on Obamacare
Mar 23, 2015 4:01 PM PDT
Was the justice hinting at his vote on the King v. Burwell case when he spoke to a congressional panel?
by Greg Stohr
A Supreme Court justice wouldn’t use a congressional hearing to signal his vote on Obamacare, would he?
Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers that the justices should interpret statutes without worrying about congressional gridlock.
Kennedy didn’t specifically mention the Affordable Care Act, but his comments prompted immediate speculation that he will read the law as barring crucial tax subsidies to insurance purchasers in two-thirds of the country–leaving it to the president and Congress to negotiate what would seem an unlikely fix.
“We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government.”
—Justice Anthony Kennedy
Eric Segall, an Obamacare backer who teaches at Georgia State University College of Law, quickly responded on Twitter:
Eric Segall @espinsegall
Follow
Kennedy just said a dysfunctional Congress is no reason Court shouldn't send laws back to them to "fix." Uggggggggghh
1:11 PM - 23 Mar 2015
19 Retweets 4 favorites
"This does not bode well for the government," blogged Josh Blackman, an Obamacare critic who teaches at South Texas College of Law.
Kennedy voted to invalidate the law three years ago when the court considered a broad constitutional challenge. He dissented as Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four Democratic appointees to uphold the measure.