Thinking back on my civics class in high school, I remember where Congress writes the laws of the land and the Supreme Court says if they are constitutional or not. I do not remember the Supreme Court having the legal ability to write laws, period.
In the two just-settled cases that are generating so much interest, the upholding of the ACA case, whether you agree with the decision or not, they have ruled the law is constitutional. If the law is to be changed, it must go to Congress, and they must change the law and have the president sign it. I see no problem here.
In the homosexual marriage case, there is a difference. What the Supreme Court has ruled is that laws that discriminate on a sexual preference in issuing marriage licenses are in violation of the Constitution. That does not mean that homosexual marriage is now the law of the land. Remember the Supreme Court cannot write laws, just approve or disapprove those laws that are written. States now have the right to rewrite their laws to comply with those problems found in the current laws by the Supreme Court. And the opponents of those laws have the right to go through the legal process of appealing the new laws.
A good example of my argument is the past actions on the death penalty cases. The Supreme Court ruled the death penalty, as written, was unconstitutional. The states then had the option of correcting the law, as written, or doing away with the death penalty. States did both, and the death penalty has now been found constitutional, although under continuous attack by anti-death penalty segments.
On a personal basis, I do not have any problem with homosexual marriage as presented. They represent a very small number of the population, and implementation of such affects no one but the participants. If you do not agree with homosexual marriage, do not participate.
The ACA, on the other hand, cost the vast majority much more in resources and helps only a very few who had no insurance before and are now covered. To point to the 7 million to 8 million enrolled in the program as a bountiful success is total baloney; most of those participating in the program had insurance prior to the act. So using that inflated number as a sign of success is a political lie.
retired business management manager