Interest that is defending itself, that is defending its right to pollute, that is endistinguishing its ability to compromise our atmosphere, compromise our health, compromise our great oceans and waters. This should be an easy struggle. This should be an easy struggle. But its not, and it will be a mark of shame on this generati generation, and it will a mark of shame on this buildin buildit i have goin the choice between the clear information from the that given the choice between the clear frftion from the scientists shall the clear experience of what is happening in all of our states and the power of the special interests, we ignored the first and we yielded to that power of those special interests. Mr. President , i yield the floor. Mr. Whitehouse mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Whitehouse i ask that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 146, Senate Resolution 156. The presiding officer the clerk will report.
Which in the context of thenly i terpre statute for the is a highly implausible interpretation. The when you look at the statute in the context of how it should be examined others confirm to is not at war atth the central purpose. So lets take a quick lookurpos. At the purpose when congresscest passed the Charles Willey fiercest critics concurred with the supporters to puhieve universal health carerp coverage which has michael panelist professor edwards wrote an article on addt theio subject and in additionm r the exchanges were a mechanism to achieve that it was n goal so not intel one 1 2, years after obama signed the aca into law is that and then to have the 180degree interpretation of the law mechanists some. Hael i but the text is in harmony. It did not intend there doesno not put the stake in the state hands of Health Reform forncere. Those that are very sincere i dont doubt that for a minute such as attorney general pruitt in the facted to stiffing the constituencytory that the
Affordable care act is here to stay. Announces the decision. Right to tom goldstein, also the founder of scotus blog. Nice to see you. Lets start with the big question why did the Supreme Court uphold this law today and why is this Majority Coalition larger than it was last time . Well, i think we get basically the same message in this decision as the last one. That is the Supreme Court does not want to determine this incredibly political issue. I think the view of the chief justice is the country has been battling over this question of health care for decades, we are not going to step in. I think the majority is even broader here because its not a big constitutional challenge. I think Justice Kennedy recognized as well that the Affordable Care act is a wet mess of writing. And so theres some ambiguity. Tom you know, one of the questions that the court was taking up here within this beyond just the aca, but what is the role of the court. A lot of people have been saying it looks like t
Administrative law has been a greenfield for scholars for quite some time because it stands at the confluence of American constitutional law and political theory regarding the proper structure of American government.[1] Most administrative law is made not by Congress, but by the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court of the United States.
about what he thinks the law should be. he s done this in the context of what i just described, whether federal courts should defer to agency interpretation, but he s also done it in the context of whether or not federal courts should abstain, sit back, not hear cases involving section 1983, which authorizes individuals to sue state actors for violations of constitutional rights under color of state law, a critical statute to civil rights claimants. and so all of this, plus his decisions in capital punishment cases and other cases have led us to conclude that we must oppose his confirmation to the united states supreme court. ari, there was a piece in slate and you heard that bill of particulars on neil go such, but there s this take that democrats have already given away their fund rental leverage which was their strongest argument was to say the nomination in and of itself is illegitimate because there was never even a hearing