(10-26-2020 03:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2020 03:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-26-2020 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If a Justice will decide based on the Constitution, black letter law, and precedent, that is all I ask.

The Democrats seem terrified of that, though.

But what about precedent that is not based upon an originalist understanding of the Constitution?

"Originalism" is a red herring. Is it based on the Constitution? If not, then dressing it up as based on an "understanding" is putting lipstick on a pig.

But don't those who you disagree with, who view the Constitution as a document that should be interpreted with today's understanding (i.e. the living Constitution judges), still base their rulings on the Constitution?

I asked the original question because there are most certainly precedents that aren't based on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

I think deciding that something that was specifically sold to the American people as 'not a tax' is a tax is something the SCOTUS should not remotely have done. If the plan was Constitutional without that, then it should stand. If its not, then it should fall. All you had to do to fix it was actually MAKE it a tax.

That expands the courts ability to 'fix' legislation... and they shouldn't do that. Legislators should. This isn't a question of a typo or something that was intended and this was an unintended consequence... It was specifically and purposely designed to NOT be a tax.

The problem for the left is that they probably can't pass it again.... even among themselves.