Comments on: The rest of the Supreme Court’s term

By: Hugo S Cunningham

Hugo S Cunningham — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:46:18 +0000

@Bill H
I am not sure Bernie Sanders would take his Second Amendment support from pro-gun Vermont to the national stage. As a Congressperson from upstate NY,Kirsten Gillibrand was a reliable gun-rights supporter, but now as a NY-wide Senator, she is mainly known for Mattress Girl and seeking to impose Mattress-Girl standards on the US military.

PS: It can get worse. Look up Venezuela.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:35:46 +0000

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization
altered).”

From the second paragraph of Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell et al v.

I wonder where that sentiment can be found in his King v Burwell decision yesterday, where I can find no trace of it…

By: Bill H

Bill H — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:57:59 +0000

I’ve come to the conclusion that the rule of law is mere window dressing. We have a Supreme Court that has little if any connection to reality, a Congress that refuses to do it’s job in a linear, honest fashion, and an Executive branch that just does not care at all about real outcomes. It matters not what side of the aisle I’m on- I get no relief as I see law after law after court decision take away what very little I have. Seriously, I give up. I’m just glad that I have no children that will have to clean this mess up when the party is finally over.

I’m actually warming to the idea of Bernie Sanders as President. He can’t make circumstances any worse than what we have now. At least he sorta supports the 2nd Amendment. No telling anymore what SCOTUS would do on a straight yes or no decision.

By: spo

spo — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:51:09 +0000

This is a new rule of statutory interpretation–wait and see. If Congress doesn’t judge the real-world reaction to statutes, the Court can fix it. Does anyone doubt that had 45 states set up an exchange, there wouldn’t be a single vote for the current interpretation? So, basically, state legislative enactments or the absence thereof, are now an interpretative aid.

Wow.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:46:36 +0000

The majority opinion does not seem to me to be the work of a judge who believes his role to be that of a neutral umpire, calling balls and strikes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/roberts.statement/

By: spo

spo — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:51:29 +0000

Re: King v. Burwell–whatever it is, it is not law.

By: No Name Guy

No Name Guy — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:19:47 +0000

Hmmm….I guess plain English doesn’t mean what it says. It means what I want it to say, regardless of the words. So much for “rule of law”. And back to rule of 5 people in robes……