I agree, except for one word
Reader comment on: Fury At Roberts Is Misplaced
Submitted by Dan Calabria (United States), Jul 3, 2012 17:47
I agree with the article with one exception - the omission of one word by substituting another, different word.
The law that was passed did not include the word "tax" to describe the basis for implementing the requirement that everyone own medical insurance. That is the law that was argued before the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, Justice Roberts replaced the word "penalty" with the word "tax." .i,e., he substituted a word in the law that does not appear in the text of the law. This does not involve semantics, it is a change in the text of the law as it was written.
And it was based on that change that the 5 to 4 majority ruled, which begs the question - how do you make a judicial decision based on language that is not a part of the text of the law on which a decision is made?
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item