Are you saying that republicans are anti-working women?

I guess it goes back to what we expect SCOTUS to do. Is SCOTUS supposed to insure that when Congress specifically places limits of any kind in place, that Congress' edict (as signed by the President) is followed to-the-letter? OR, is SCOTUS supposed to step in and say, "Well, the law specifically says XXXX, but any 'reasonable person' knows what Congress really meant to say was YYYY." ? In other words, do we want SCOTUS to follow the law as written, or edit it?

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to issue a decision which does not involve any "well intentioned editing" so that Congress can go back and do it right. That way, SCOTUS remains as a court of law, instead of as Congress' editor. The "editor-critiquer" is supposed to be the President who signs (or vetoes) what Congress places before him/her.

Agreed, Steve
 

I concur with the way SCOTUS handled this case. While the opinions of the justices were closely split and the dissenting opinions well-written, the Court as a whole chose not to "make law from the bench".

I'm glad that the Congress took fairly quick action to correct a law which was faultily written from the outset. I'm sure SCOTUS was pleased with that result, as well. This case is a good example of how poorly written or confusing laws can lead to unsatisfying judicial decisions. It highlights the quandary faced by courts in attempting to rule using poorly crafted legislation.

What's more bothersome to me is the nagging suspicion that the law was initially written that way intentionally, maybe the product of wording provided by a big company lobby which intended it to be faulty, which then wasn't read before passage by the Congress that voted it in.

Happens all the time. The legislators don't write the bills. Sometimes their aides do, and quite often they receive draft bills from a host of sources (which the legislator's staff edit and then submit as the legislator's "work product"). So, quite often bills never get fully researched as to see which existing laws are affected. Legislators want the publicity associated with bills, and take no pride in authorship when the conflicts occur downstream.

Why Not?
 

I'm certainly not making a proposal here. But knowing that this is the way laws are made, why are the conservatives so deathly opposed to federal judges "making law from the bench"?

I know that the framers of the Constitution had specific intentions and expectations for the relationship between the Congress, the courts, and the President. But I doubt that they envisioned the significant influence of lobbyists, untrained Congressional aides, and members of Congress too busy to understand or even read the laws that they vote onto the books, or an executive unwilling to ruffle Congressional feathers by vetoing a faulted law. Maybe they also didn't envision a Congress so busy "doing other things" that they don't take the time to go back and correct faulty legislation after it's discovered.

That being the case, why shouldn't the federal courts serve as "editor" of faulty laws produced by the other branches of government?

Just kind of a discussion question.

Simply because then the "We, the People" are taken out of the law-making business when judges can autocratically amend-via-decision any statute. When Judges "rule from the bench," personal bias replaces the will of the people and eliminates the need for and purpose of a legislature duly elected by the citizenry. "We, the People" are replaced by "We, the Few and Almighty." The last time that situation existed here, tea ended up floating in Boston Harbor.

Discussion Question Answered
 

Good answer, Steve. I should have thought of that before I posed the question for discussion.

As faulty as the system is--and it apparently is pretty faulty--it would be wrong to replace the will of the people with the decisions of federal judges.

Here in Taxachusetts, everything proposition that is put on the ballots and voted on..gets overturned by the elitists. They just raised our sales tax, again, in the dead of the night.

I'm saying McCain voiced strong opposition to the legislation during the elections.

Well, I guess we'll never know...but we know with McCain in there we wouldn't have this sea of red ink...or at least not nearly as much:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...f-Red-Ink.html

We must be honest. I know that people on TOTV will never believe it but, when the people of Massachusetts were given the opportunity to get rid of the Massachusetts state income tax,They voted to keep it! It is no wonder that our state government thinks that we want more taxes.

Oh well, I will be in the Villages bubble and away from this madness soon enough.

Yoda

Not a Massachusetts liberal

Hopefully I won't be far behind you.:beer3: