5 ms·

This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the 19

This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the 1992 law were told of this ruling they probably could have written a law that achieved the desired results and not run afoul of this ruling.

Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional restrictions on power. It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed fashion and get things working again.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  I guess, my argument would be that the Supreme Court should look at "would a law with this same intent/effect pass constitutional muster if written differently? and how meaningful would the differences be". Otherwise this is just a game of legal gotcha that gives more power to the Supreme Court than it should really have.
  - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
    And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. We can't have them just saying it's fine because if it were different it would be fine. It does matter how it was enacted and under whose authority. If we let that slide even a little bit, we'll immediately have power struggles between competing authorities. I doubt the people who wrote the law that is now being shot down would want the court operating differently, though they might not like the decision.
    - Eridrus 8y ago
      > And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. But it is already up to the courts to interpret the law. I really don't think it's a stretch to say "look, we think this law was written poorly, but we think that this part of the law could have been written just fine, so we're going to go with that".
      - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
        I see what you're saying, and sometimes it happens that way, like Roberts overlooking the discrepancy between tax and penalty in the Affordable Care Act. Writing sloppy laws is like writing sloppy code, it catches up with you, and is tougher to fix the deeper it is. I wouldn't hire someone to write software who said, "Look, I think this code was written poorly, but I think that this part of the code could have been written just fine, so I'm going to just go with that" There is a difference between interpreting what the law would have intended where an unforseen circumstance arises, and just reinterpreting it as fine even though it has overstepped the authority. In this case, federal power was overstepped in telling the states how to legislate.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, Intent may be a factor in resolving ambiguities in the text of the law, but the perceived goal of a law does not substitute for the text of the law in determining what the law is. For a law to be valid, it must be within the Constitutional power of government as written, not just serving an apparent purpose that some other formulation might validly address. Aside from the problem of transferring legislative power to the judiciary, your apparent preference here would not give citizens subject to the law notice of its actual parameters, since the “real” law restricting their behavior might be something unrecognizable in detail from the text of the adopted law that happens to serve what some court sees as the same purpose the legislature sought with the text they adopted.

Steel_Phoenix 8y ago

That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional restrictions on power. It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed fashion and get things working again.

Eridrus 8y ago
I guess, my argument would be that the Supreme Court should look at "would a law with this same intent/effect pass constitutional muster if written differently? and how meaningful would the differences be". Otherwise this is just a game of legal gotcha that gives more power to the Supreme Court than it should really have.
- Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
  And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. We can't have them just saying it's fine because if it were different it would be fine. It does matter how it was enacted and under whose authority. If we let that slide even a little bit, we'll immediately have power struggles between competing authorities. I doubt the people who wrote the law that is now being shot down would want the court operating differently, though they might not like the decision.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    > And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. But it is already up to the courts to interpret the law. I really don't think it's a stretch to say "look, we think this law was written poorly, but we think that this part of the law could have been written just fine, so we're going to go with that".
    - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
      I see what you're saying, and sometimes it happens that way, like Roberts overlooking the discrepancy between tax and penalty in the Affordable Care Act. Writing sloppy laws is like writing sloppy code, it catches up with you, and is tougher to fix the deeper it is. I wouldn't hire someone to write software who said, "Look, I think this code was written poorly, but I think that this part of the code could have been written just fine, so I'm going to just go with that" There is a difference between interpreting what the law would have intended where an unforseen circumstance arises, and just reinterpreting it as fine even though it has overstepped the authority. In this case, federal power was overstepped in telling the states how to legislate.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, Intent may be a factor in resolving ambiguities in the text of the law, but the perceived goal of a law does not substitute for the text of the law in determining what the law is. For a law to be valid, it must be within the Constitutional power of government as written, not just serving an apparent purpose that some other formulation might validly address. Aside from the problem of transferring legislative power to the judiciary, your apparent preference here would not give citizens subject to the law notice of its actual parameters, since the “real” law restricting their behavior might be something unrecognizable in detail from the text of the adopted law that happens to serve what some court sees as the same purpose the legislature sought with the text they adopted.