4 ms·

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 p

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.

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.