3 ms·
> 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 i
by 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 agoI 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.