Cautioning the Supreme Court ahead of the Obamacare decision, President Obama said “you interpret a statute based on intent”.
Oh really? Because based on intent, everyone who voted for it should be in jail.
Cautioning the Supreme Court ahead of the Obamacare decision, President Obama said “you interpret a statute based on intent”.
Oh really? Because based on intent, everyone who voted for it should be in jail.
Re: This post, and the previous one about alcohol
Harvey’s in extra sardonic mood. Hat’s off to you, sir!
but they don’t want to interpret the constitution based on the intent of the writers. hum. also, my interpretation of obama care was that the subsidies for exchanges provided incentive for states to set them up. so the intent was to not have federal exchanges or subsidies. it was a way to force states to pay for the bulk of the expenses.
@1 – Yeah, I put my cranky-pants on for these 🙂
Oh really? The framers were quite clear about the 2nd amendment after the constitution was adopted. We know exactly their intent. But that doesn’t sit well with the left. OTOH, nobody expects the libtards to be anything other than major hypocrites.
The real “intent” or the “intent” the the stupid people believed was the “intent”? The “intent” was to make person A pay 3 times more for something he probably already had while saying to to persons C, D and E that they’re going to get what person A has for”free”. Person A= 1 vote against communism vs person C,D and E = 3 votes for it. THAT is the real and only “intent”. The fact that this is even up for debate is proof that they already won and why they even bother to argue over who flushes the toilet is beyond me. Last time I checked, the feds and the state all steal “their” money from the same ever shrinking group so what difference, at this point, does it make which one pays the
subsidybribe?A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
Livy
Intent = Whatever a Liberal believes they want to do with a law. Might as well just pass blank pieces of paper and let the President “Determine the intent” and do whatever he wants. Actually, wouldn’t even need the Supreme Court anymore after that.
@6 – good point, Walrus.
They’ve already tried it with immigration: it’s a Tabu La Raza.
Can we pass a law that says ‘blah blah blah’ and interpret as meaning that we repeal the tax code?