Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI
First, you do understand that decisions aren't limited to arguments or briefs, right?
C.J. Roberts didn't "rewrite" any portion of the act, but found that most of it was not in violation of the US Constitution.
Your misunderstanding is therefore quite reasonable, I suppose.
|
Is it the Court's duty to go out of their way to support a law? It seems like Roberts was trying to find a way NOT to overturn the whole thing. Is that a re-defining of the role of SCOTUS?
If so, is it a good thing? Will it still be a good thing when the Court rules against whatever your current position on some future law?