4 ms·
I think that's the intent of the ruling, actually. Part of the conclusion says "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."
by falcrist 6y ago
I think that's the intent of the ruling, actually. Part of the conclusion says "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."
- JohnL4 6y agoAnd, so, in keeping with Gorsuch's minimalism. No re-interpretation of existing law, which makes the right happy (or did, until recently, I guess).
- falcrist 6y agoSometimes I wish the SCOTUS would reinterpret things that were obviously wrong... but I'd much rather have the SCOTUS interpret the law as it was intended, and have Congress fix the actual problems with the law.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- modmans2nd 6y ago“As intended “ isn’t “as it is written “. See the recent ruling that came down saying that LGBTQ people are protected under the civil rights act of 1967 because the words are very plainly written. Just because the people in congress probably didn’t intend to protect the LGBTQ community given the culture at the time the WORDS of the law are very clear.
- falcrist 6y ago"As intended" versus "as written" really depends on the law being discussed and the justice interpreting the law. For example, constitutional scholarship seems to lean heavily on interpreting the law by its intent rather than purely by the words
- koheripbal 6y agoI mean.... that case was neither "as it is written" nor "as intended". In that case the court simply ruled on what was morally right. LGBTQ people were not intended to be protected in the 1967 law, nor was it written as such. I agree they deserve protections and Congress should amend the law as such. It's sad SCOTUS is made to break its role to fix this.
- icelancer 6y ago>> obviously wrong Who can say what this is?