Author Topic: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit  (Read 39250 times)

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit
« Reply #150 on: June 27, 2015, 08:00:10 AM »
It seemed like this quote would be interesting in this thread too:

Remember that reading solely what you already agree with does not make for an interesting community compared to the exchange of a diverse array of viewpoints.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit
« Reply #151 on: June 28, 2015, 04:19:47 PM »
<crickets>

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit
« Reply #152 on: June 28, 2015, 04:46:27 PM »
<crickets>

From this post, I think you might be under some misapprehension about why I sometimes choose not to reply to posts addressed to me.

I participate in this forum because I enjoy it, and as such, I limit my posting to things that I find interesting. I do not find it interesting or enjoyable to respond to points that I've already adequately addressed in earlier posts. Even if your recent posts contained novel points (which they don't), I would still be within my rights to decline to reply.

Through our posts here, we've created a discussion that will hopefully be of interest to, and of some assistance to, future readers, by providing them with new things to think about. If they want to, those future readers are free to draw their own conclusions about who is "right". Personally, my goal is to engage in discussion, not to win a contest. At this point, I've already provided enough material for those future readers to understand the views that I have expressed. Therefore, such activities as
  • analysing your specific links and writing detailed essays on them, and
  • explaining how my post you've quoted is consistent with what I've said in this thread
are not necessary or helpful.

I generally choose to make posts that I think will help people (and making them consider new things is one way of helping them). I will continue to allocate my time on the threads where I think I can make posts that will maximise the amount of help that I can give.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 04:49:47 PM by Cathy »

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit
« Reply #153 on: June 28, 2015, 05:13:29 PM »
<crickets>

From this post, I think you might be under some misapprehension about why I sometimes choose not to reply to posts addressed to me.

I participate in this forum because I enjoy it, and as such, I limit my posting to things that I find interesting. I do not find it interesting or enjoyable to respond to points that I've already adequately addressed in earlier posts. Even if your recent posts contained novel points (which they don't), I would still be within my rights to decline to reply.

Through our posts here, we've created a discussion that will hopefully be of interest to, and of some assistance to, future readers, by providing them with new things to think about. If they want to, those future readers are free to draw their own conclusions about who is "right". Personally, my goal is to engage in discussion, not to win a contest. At this point, I've already provided enough material for those future readers to understand the views that I have expressed. Therefore, such activities as
  • analysing your specific links and writing detailed essays on them, and
  • explaining how my post you've quoted is consistent with what I've said in this thread
are not necessary or helpful.

I generally choose to make posts that I think will help people (and making them consider new things is one way of helping them). I will continue to allocate my time on the threads where I think I can make posts that will maximise the amount of help that I can give.

That's a shame. I was hoping to learn more about what specifically you found to be objectionable/inaccurate about the coverage from what many people consider a quality news source. It seemed like there may have been something you had already identified previously that would be relatively easy to articulate. Oh well. My loss. I appreciate the discussion we did have though. Enjoy the other threads.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit
« Reply #154 on: July 08, 2015, 07:52:57 PM »
In Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ishaq, 2015 FCA 151, the Federal Court of Appeal (of Canada) considered six applications from various public interest organisations who wanted to file legal briefs discussing the merits of a constitutional case before the Court (regarding freedom of religion). The Court refused to accept any of the six proffered briefs on the basis that the organisations had nothing relevant to add to the case. According to the Court, the legal process is fundamentally apolitical in nature and is not concerned with the effect of its decisions on society at large, and therefore the assistance of these organisations would be undesirable.

The Court explains this aspect of its decision as follows (paras 25-27):

                      In this case, one applicant casts its eye to what it says the Supreme Court does in some Charter cases. It suggests that “[i]n public interest litigation” courts “will be making policy decisions on matters of fundamental importance to Canadian society” and so a liberal approach to intervention should be adopted. This smacks of the idea that judges deciding Charter issues make subjective decisions about what ought to be and so they should welcome policy briefs from a broad array of people.

That idea is fundamentally misconceived. Unelected as we are, when we decide cases we do not rely upon our aspirations, ideological visions or freestanding opinions about what is just, appropriate and right. We do not decide cases on an ad hoc basis using tendentious reasoning based on our personal views. We, like judges on all courts, are subject to constitutional limits, legislation, and binding legal doctrine. Those who disregard this overlook our democratic and constitutional arrangements. The opening words of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 enshrine a principle won four centuries ago at the cost of much bloodshed: legislators have the exclusive right to make laws. The only policies we can apply reside in the law or emerge from time-honoured, accepted pathways of legal reasoning. [...]

As a result, as far as interventions are concerned, we usually refuse offers to acquaint us with political considerations and policies at large, including those that are nothing more than social science conclusions based on a body of evidence not before us. Similarly, offers to acquaint us with foreign or international law regardless of its relevance to the issues at hand are often refused .... Such offers do not advance any of our tasks as a court of law.

It's interesting to contrast this decision with the approach taken by US appellate courts, which routinely accept briefs from a wide variety of interested organisations and persons.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2015, 07:57:34 PM by Cathy »

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Supreme Court to opine on Obamacare tax credit
« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2015, 09:35:20 PM »
It's interesting to contrast this decision with the approach taken by US appellate courts, which routinely accept briefs from a wide variety of interested organisations and persons.

Yeah, this seems to represent a fundamental difference in judicial philosophy from most US courts, which don't just have a history of accepting amicus curiae briefs, but also explicitly take public policy considerations into account when deciding cases.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!