Ah, you're right, my friend.
What bothers me is that supposedly 52% are opposed to Obamacare and 47$ want to keep it. And yet, the past two mid-terms and also in 2012, the GOP in the end made huge gains. Right down to "County Clerk" across the country. So, it doesn't make sense.
My dismay, Luis is that we'd have a Chief Justice that would interpret words differently "for the good of the People".
That isn't a SCOTUS' privilege or mandate.
This thread isn't about politics, so I'll make this brief.
In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is
Affirmed.
We get to pick the government that we have, and because of that, we own their output. We have that government as a result of the combined efforts of those who vote and the lack of efforts of those who do not vote.
Not too long ago, a week or so back in fact, people here, good conservatives as they describe themselves, stood behind Rick Santorum's statement that the SCOTUS didn't have the final say and argued that the SCOTUS lacks the Constitutional power to declare duly enacted laws, enacted by those people chosen by the people to do that sort of a thing, unconstitutional. They were of course NOT talking about Obamacare, but about same sex marriage.
Well, a careful reading of Roberts's final sentences in the King v. Burwell decision tells you that Roberts agrees with them.
"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people.Now, those who argued that the SCOTUS lacks the constitutionally-granted power to overturn laws HAVE to agree with Roberts here, because not agreeing with him would make them blatant hypocrites, wouldn't you agree?