Court's Liberals Hammer Health Law Challengers

[Tkruger]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed bitterly divided during heated arguments over the fate of President Obama's health care law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/supreme-court-arguments-health-care-law.html?_r=0

 

[cadylou]

This article was poorly written. . . .but the question I have here is should the court really be concerned with the impact of their decision? Isn't it their job to "interpret" the meaning of the law, rather than color that interpretation with impact on the public? Their job isn't to legislate, although it surely seems that they are - in fact - being asked to do just that. Someone in another thread posted the link to the SCOTUS blog, which gives a blow by blow account of the discussion at the court. SCOTUSblog

 

[timsip]

Unfortunately for the liberal justices, it isn't their job to base their decisions on that argument. Their job in this case is to determine if the government is following the law as it was written. And by the letter of the law, the government isn't doing so.

----------

Also note that these articles appear to be poorly written because they skip the editing part of writing in order to get the articles out first. These arguments are taking place as we speak so anything that can be published fast will be. Everyone wants to be first with the scoop because it sells more advertising.

 

[Tkruger]

I too am concerned about them basing their view on what may happen vs. interpretation of the law as it was written. It's now SCOTUS job to see the future and decide what's best?

 

[cadylou]

I too am concerned about them basing their view on what may happen vs. interpretation of the law as it was written. It's now SCOTUS job to see the future and decide what's best?

I know - it's just wrong . . .

 

[houcoogster]

This article was poorly written. . . .but the question I have here is should the court really be concerned with the impact of their decision? Isn't it their job to "interpret" the meaning of the law, rather than color that interpretation with impact on the public? Their job isn't to legislate, although it surely seems that they are - in fact - being asked to do just that. Someone in another thread posted the link to the SCOTUS blog, which gives a blow by blow account of the discussion at the court. SCOTUSblog

Would you rather have 9 robots sitting up there?
Of course they have to consider the ramifications of their decisions.

 

[insuranceconceptscindy]

Thank you for the link to the SCOTUS blog. I will get even less work done today.

 

[cadylou]

Would you rather have 9 robots sitting up there?
Of course they have to consider the ramifications of their decisions.

Only if they are all like Chappie . . . .

Chappie (2015) | Fandango

 

[houcoogster]

Thank you for the link to the SCOTUS blog. I will get even less work done today.

Feeding that dog looks like a full time job.... in and of itself.

 

[AllenChicago]

Feeding that dog looks like a full time job.... in and of itself.

Her AvatarPhoto just snuffed my late night urge to snack.