Today EJ Dionne wrote an article long on whining and short on logic about the conflicting decisions regarding Obamacare:
By effectively gutting the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday, two members of a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals showed how far right-leaning jurists have strayed from such impartiality. We are confronted with a conservative judiciary that will use any argument it can muster to win ideological victories that elude their side in the elected branches of our government.
Strayed from impartiality? Say what? Then Dionne jumps off the cliff:
The extreme judicial activism here is obvious when you consider, as the 4th Circuit did, that even if you accept that there is ambiguity in the law, the Supreme Court’s 30-year-old precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council held that in instances of uncertainty, the court defers to federal agencies rather than concocting textual clarity when it doesn’t exist.
No, sir. It is NOT activism to insist the law be respected as written. It is ACTIVISM to interpret it otherwise. The law is very clear, and this is highly likely to get to the Supreme Court.
And now let me summon the prophetic words of John Roberts.
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Remember those words.
They said we had to pass it to find out what was in it. I am beginning to think John Roberts plays a mean game of chess.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
In the latest ”win” in the 4th Circuit court by ObamaCare and the subsidies for non-state exchanges, Obama’s side convinced the justices that Black’s Law Dictionary needs a rewrite.
“Should” and “must,” can also now mean ”may” or ”might.”
IF this side wins it turns all law on its head!
What is a ”red light?”
Just a suggestion?
What does it mean to sign an affidavit?
It MIGHT be true?
Yikes!
Despite all of the feelings of frustration in the first Obamacare SC ruling, I had the feeling that Roberts is playing the long game. Hopefully, there will be a “checkmate” on this horrible POS law.
@Angel Artiste –
I agree with your point that Roberts is playing the long game. It is the power of the vote that determines the direction of the country. It is much too late voters who elected Obama twice to now have voter’s remorse.
@Nanny G: Orwell predicted this seventy years ago. Were he still alive I think he’d be surprised it took the Left this long to instigate a new dictionary of the English language in which the meaning of words completely depended on the needs of the Left.
If Roberts folds on this one…we will have a new kind of Supreme Court…a supra legislature whose new job will be to mold the acts of Congress to fit the “plain meaning” of the needs of the Left. I think it will be the end of the Republic. This will be a huge decision. Kennedy and Roberts…it is gut check time.
@David: The legitimacy of the 2012 election is now much in question given the suppression of conservative groups by the IRS. The MSM put Obama over the first time…the second time it was Candy Crowley in the second debate and the bureaucracy that changed the outcome…I believe.
@Angel Artiste: When I looked at the SC ruling on Obama Care, I was at first dismayed with the written words of John Roberts. What he wrote was totally inconsistent with his historical decisions. I decided to not judge him since he is likely much smarter than I. As the ACA unfolds and “we finally know what is in it”, it appears there will be many more decisions required to validate all of this act. Justice Roberts is indeed playing the long game. He read the law. His opponents waited until the act was made law before they read it. Now, they are trying to back pedal on their bike only equipped with coaster brakes.
The admission that “Roberts plays a mean game of chess” is rather telling.
Perhaps an “oops!” is appropriate?
Hope you guys are right about Roberts. I’m not in that camp.
That one sentence from Roberts is an abrogation and denial of the SCOTUS’s prime responsibility. To protect The People from unconstitutional actions by the Federal government. That is the PRIMARY reason for the SCOTUS to exist. Obamacare was passed first in the Senate possible only because the Senate sold the “tax” as “a penalty”, yet Robert’s decision declared that it wasn’t a penalty, but a “tax.” For that reason alone, Roberts should have declared it unconstitutional, as the the Constitution requires ALL bills of taxation to originate in the House of Representatives.
@Ditto: Your comment reminded me of Kelo.
The decision was, in essence, that IF Americans don’t like it that a city council, or county gov’t or state gov’t or federal gov’t takes away their land so it can be used to raise more taxes…..they should change who is in that gov’t!
Justice Suiter wrote that opinion. (IIRC)
So the precedent has been set.
The governed will not be protected from the gov’t by the court.
Only the governed can protect themselves by changing the gov’t.
Last I read over 27 states had written new laws making a Kelo-type act illegal in their borders.
Anyone who believes the leftists are being honest when they claim that the obamacare subsidy clause about “exchange established by the state” is a typo -and that of COURSE the federal exchanges were meant to be included in this wealth redistribution is a fool.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube
In typical lying, slimy, deceitful fashion, Gruber is now saying the exact opposite of what he clearly said before Halbig was filed: (from the same link above)
These leftist scumbags really do think we are too stupid to figure out when they are BLATANTLY lying to us. Obamacare subsidies were written into the law with the express purpose of coercing states into setting up exchanges, or face not receiving the subsidies (bribes) from the fed to support this socialist scam. The leftists, like Gruber, who were so sure that the rest of us are all money grubbing toads like they are, that they were shocked at the opposition that led to 34 states refusing to set up state exchanges. Now, faced with the legal challenge that could, God-willing, finally overturn this evil, despicable law – these same bullying socialists are acting like Orwell’s memory hole exists as they try to call one of the central carrot-and-stick planks of their attempted coercion to get states to participate – a TYPO!
Anyone who ever votes for a leftist is truly either a complete moron, or a pathetic masochist who loves being lied to and abused. There is no defending this. Leftists are absolutely untrustworthy, and are only getting more blatant in their deceitful behaviors. There is no more loathesome creature under the sun.
Take a look at the relevant portion of the IRS’ new tax form:
http://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/IRS%201040%20image.JPG
A new surtax line has been created for the payment of the individual mandate surtax – see line 61 of the 1040
You can avoid it by checking the box saying you have had coverage for the full year.
It’s a TAX.
See all the new tax forms:
http://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/draftTaxForms.html
And like clockwork – Gruber is trying (laughably) to claim he didn’t really mean what he can clearly be seen and heard saying on the video…calling his statement a “speak-o”. really, these leftists are complete scumbags.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake
That is what this asshat Gruber is claiming now when being interviewed by the leftist New Republic. From the same source, here is the direct quote of the question Gruber was asked, as well as his answer that he is now deceitfully trying to deny, smother and backtrack:
How utterly despicable is the person who, when clearly caught beyond any doubt lying, continues desperately trying to twist away from the truth in their desire to manipulate you into believing their lies? This sort of pathologic behavior is exactly what we got from Clinton (both of them, really) and continues with every leftist political hack out there. This is indefensible. This shows the left cares only about doing whatever is necessary to impose their fascism upon the rest of us.
Obamacare must be destroyed. There is nothing good in it, no matter how much socialists continue their disingenuous nonsense about ‘helping the poor’. Obamacare is nothing more than leftist coercion and control, and they will brazenly lie every step of the way to force their fascism upon us all.
@Ditto: The Supreme Court judges the cases placed before them and accepted by them. It is not their mission to change laws to be equitable. They determine if the current law before them meets Constitutional requirements. (They sometimes reach quite far.) A law that is found to not be constitutional requires the legislative branch to fix it and the administrative branch to approve it. The judicial branch has no mandate to jump in and change anything unless we, the people, ask for justice by filing a law suit.
If we the electorate elects an ignorant representative, there are several means of correcting those mistakes. In Colorado, we recalled several Senators from the state government. It is our responsibility to determine the quality and dependability of those we elect. The media is supposed to be a major part of our vetting these candidates. They have the mandate of the people to inform the people, but the media has forfeited their credibility in that area.
@Randy:
Bull crap. I’m not buying the Kelo V. New London arguments, based in Progressive expansion of government power which set two new court precedences. One to reinterpret imminent domain in a manner that courts never had before (and which the founders would not have supported if the jurists had bothered to read Madison’s Federalist Papers), The other as a contorted legalistic excuse allowing future courts to avoid their responsibility of protecting the people from government that overstepped it’s reach.
In the Kelo and Obamacare cases, no one had made claim that the law was passed by “ignorant representatives.” That is a strawman argument invented by the Kelo court and adopted by Roberts. For the last two centuries, the SCOTUS certainly hasn’t followed the Kelo/Roberts strawman caveat in a good many of it’s cases. It has instead often ruled that government lawmakers passed laws that were unconstitutional or unjust without ever before giving this new progressive “blame the voters” argument: That unjust or unconstitutional laws are OK because ‘the voters voted against their best interests by electing bad politicians.’
The ACA did not meet the Constitutional requirement that Taxation bills must originate in the House of Representatives. That is just cause for the law to be found unconstitutional, as it was not passed following the Constitutionally required process. After declaring that the “Penalty” was indeed a “tax,” Roberts should have declared the law void on that reason and sent it back to Congress to have it passed in the Correct, Constitutionally required process.
Ditto: it is eminent domain.
The issue is the meaning of law. Can one read the words of the enacted statute and know what they mean?
Or not?
Need one apply to some Agency to tell one what the words mean?
The words in the PPACA are clear and unambiguous. In context, “state” refers to one of the 50 states which constitute the United States. And “state exchange” refers to an exchange established by said state.
Period.
Only a minion of the regime could posit that Congress “meant” to have the Feddies pay the subsidy. To have done so, there would have been no need for state exchanges.
Trust the libs to misread this, as they systematically misread everything else.
Like Kelo, for instance.
@mathman:
Thanks, I’m a little distracted. I’m repairing a computer and jumping back and forth between machines.
It’s progressives of both parties who are doing this crap.
And…..the breathtaking lying continues….now a SECOND video of Gruber specifically stating that states that do not set up their own exchanges will not get taxpayer provided subsidies to pay for the laughably named “affordable care” policies has been found. And his pretyped remarks include the same statement – yet this lying leftist POS is still claiming he made a “speak-o”.
Truly, leftists are absolutely the most loathesome, deceitful and untrustworthy creatures to ever exist.
It will be interesting to see what follows if the right succeeds in monkey wrenching the Affordable Care Act. If they wreck it, they’ll suddenly be confronted with the monumental problem of what to replace it with. I don’t think they have a clue how to do that without doing themselves irreparable political damage in the process.
@Greg:
Only because you’re a Socialist, do you think the ACA should be replaced with another, equally unconstitutional gimmick. You are not owed health insurance. It is a commodity provided through the labor of others, and you are not entitled to the labor of others. You do have the right to purchase the labor of others, as long as they agree to provide their labor to you for a mutually agreed upon price.
@Ditto: 9
Don’t want to disagree with you Ditto, but I think you’re putting emphasis on the wrong part of Roberts sentence. I think that Roberts sees the Courts as the protectors of the people to the requirements and limitations of the Constitution. They are to interpret laws as to whether they fit the constitution, not as to whether they are good laws for the people. Legislatures can pass a law that is fully constitutional but is totally ignorant and/or useless. If you don’t like a constitutional law because it is a ‘bad’ law, then replace the ignorant persons that passed the law. Not the Constitution or the courts.
@Greg:
A rather telling statement:
1. You can’t “monkey wrench” a corrupt law that was hobbled from the beginning. That the courts and time are correcting this charade is promising. Would expect the same of a bad Rep law followed by Dem congress and courts.
2. “What to replace it with” is a joke: the prez and all his mindless followers have used this tact from the beginning: once we “win”, we can’t “unwin”. This isn’t sports, it’s the lives of American people. Replacement laws will be provided, but you Greg, will probably blame any further failures on the new law…or Bush. You don’t see reality.
3.Irreparable political damage has been wrought on the Democrats. Don’t project. You made you’re bed, now lie in it.
We’ll see how many puffed up speeches Obama will give about bypassing the law of the land after both the House and Senate are in Rep hands.
Checks and balances. ACA was and is a bad law…you know it.
I’m guessing that a few million Americans who couldn’t get health insurance coverage previously for a variety of reasons will likely disagree with that assessment.
None of the dire predictions opponents have made about the ACA have materialized, except in the right’s imagination and propaganda. Reverse all of the positive changes, and a lot of people will see negative consequences.
@Greg:
Riiiiiiiight….a coercive law, which no legislator read and was passed with only democrats voting to ram it through, that was written – as Gruber states TWICE on 2 separate videos before Halbig was ever filed- to bully states into going along with but now laughably claims was not the intent of the law because the wording as written endangers the mess, and which Obama has illegally and unilaterally altered already 24 times….will be the REPUBLICANS’ fault if obamacare is gutted.
Leftist logic at its FINEST!
The bill was indeed lengthy in terms of page count, but not long by word count as House Republicans claimed. 234,812 words, as this article points out. It’s their job to read such documents. Even those having limited reading skills could easily have had their legal staff divide up, analyze, and summarize the entire document topically in the time available. The truth is that they were more interested in stacking up a pile of pages on a podium to thump on in front of a television camera than making any constructive contributions to the process.
When republicans were in the minority, Congress was at least functional. I don’t know what they’re presently doing that’s even worth their paycheck. They’re not even willing to put politics aside long enough to put together a desperately needed solution to systemic problems with the Veterans Administration healthcare system. They’d apparently rather have the problem to play politics with. One quarter of all nations where the U.S. would normally have an ambassador are now without an ambassador, because these bozos won’t attend to even the most basic and routine business of Congress. Currently 43 ambassadorships are waiting for Senate confirmation. It’s ridiculous. They’re ridiculous.
@Greg: You’re sticking to a narrative, not pleading a case. You’re also using an entirely dead use of bad rhetoric:
IF you oppose the ACA, THEN you don’t want healthcare for those who need it. Fallacious, all around.
Congress’s job is to thwart the ACA and any other bad law that is ill-conceived and nothing more than an exploitative partisan stunt.
I know a gal who had no healthcare insurance, but kept $2000 in an account in case she got sick. Now, she gets fined and that money is gone unless she buys a product mandated by the state.
Before ACA, if you got sick/hurt, you still got healthcare. Not paying it back did not affect you’re credit, and the hospitals worked with you. Not ideal, and yes: it needed to change, but not “change” to any old system.
A better system could have been found if the Dems would have worked with the Reps. Instead, they rammed a bad law down everyone’s throat at an opportune time. History has shown that never works in the long run.
Congress has done a great job of keeping this hack Admin at bay. That’s it’s job. Please read up on how our government works and stop pouting that your perceived benefactors aren’t getting their way.
@Greg: The law passed under a Dem house. The issue is that the Dems didn’t read it, so here we are.
The current Feud in Washington was started by the Amateur and a scourged Dem party.
You’re using the innocent as a foil. You don’t care about the uninsured or veterans, you care about whose jersey you wear.
You represent totalitarianism, one America united under the Democratic Party.
Sorry to disappoint.
@Nathan Blue, #27:
Uninsured people who still got health care didn’t help the escalating costs of my own health services or health insurance much. Nor did they tend to have the effect of lowering my tax obligations. Why should I have to pay more to cover the costs of those who prefer not to purchase insurance?
Being a veteran, and having old friends who were brothers in arms at one time, I actually do care, and quite a bit. Not providing adequate funds and resources to provide vets with the medical care they were promised and deserve is inexcusable.
@Greg:
Just curious Greg, does it bother you that the ACA was not passed according to the Constitution, ie, originated in the House?
Is the constitutionality of any law important to you?
@Greg: 25
Are you saying all Representatives could have done this, or only Republicans? Do you think it would have mattered to any Dimocrat if they read it and didn’t agree with it? Do you think they would have voted for it, no matter what? Were they representing their constituents or the Dimocrat party?
@Redteam, #29:
I don’t see having to pay a penalty for failure to comply with a law as being a tax. If one obeys the law, no penalty applies. If the state fines me for driving without an operator’s permit, I’m not being taxed. I’m being penalized for violating a law. The state can attempt to compel people to do certain things by fining them if they don’t. When my area was first provided with access to new city sewers, there was no option for people to continue relying on perfectly functional septic systems. If you didn’t pay to connect to the new lines, you were fined. Nobody pretended it was a tax.
@Greg:
of course, UNLIKE the Dimocrats that are working hard to see that the Veterans are well cared for. Let’s see now, they’ve been running the VA for the last 6 years and I think any honest evaluation would say they’ve driven it straight to hell. Maybe the Republicans didn’t slow them down enough to prevent them doing so. Oh well, beginning in January, the Repubs should have control of both houses and Zippy can go golfing full time.
@Greg: Thanks for the bait and switch. You whined about those “without heathcare”, and when I stated that those individuals actually got care, we switch to now worrying about costs — which I do agree, but the costs have gone up for everyone, and the ACA didn’t reduce any costs by a dime…as it was claimed to do. Any other BS verbal acrobatics?
As I said, the system needed to change…but thanks for ignoring that. To repeat, the ACA was not the answer, and taking the time to dismantle it is not complicit with apathy towards the uninsured.
I’m a vet too, so can it. Anyone whose been to the VA — in any generation — knows that it does not provide the accountability or level of care commensurate to a free market system…but it’s free, and much, much better than nothing. It’s also a taste of what government run healthcare looks like.
You don’t sound like someone who cares about other people, and that’s why many of us oppose the left right now. It’s a seductive, deluding ideology that convinces the devout of the absolute power their good intentions hold. Historically proven to fail, and also not very mature. I think you work for the DNC and merely go around the blogosphere making sure you “get in their faces”. You’re arguing does nothing here beyond galvanizing those you disagree with. Why bother?
I just don’t buy your sincerity.
@Nathan Blue:
Fortunately for all, Nathan, that’s not quite true. According to the law, the only way she can be fined is by them withholding any tax refund she is due, they can’t send her a bill for it. There is no provision in the law for that. I say, according to the law, and for goodness sake, we all want the law obeyed, right?
@Greg:
But you have no problem excusing the Dims who have been running the VA for the last 6 years. I guess it must be George Bush’s fault.
@Redteam: Still, I dislike seeing a citizen exercise freedom and conscience…only to have that right taken away by rich people who think they can “save” everyone.
My favorite stat is the Dem vs. non-dem charity contributions and volunteer hours. They spend their time arguing on blogs and buying into ideologies rather than getting their hands dirty (fundraising is not this) and actually helping people in need.
@Greg:
You better hope it is a tax, according to John Roberts the only way the law is legal is if it is a tax. Remember?
I see you declined to answer the question about constitutionality of the law, wonder why?
Republicans give more to charity than Dems and Europeans:
This article is rather frightening in it’s analysis.
The author goes on to equate political donations as better than charitable donations, coming to the conclusion that dems are in fact much more charitable than republicans.
Sickening, and the real issue in this country: a portion of the electorate who desire domination while feigning goodwill have no issues with embracing whatever flavor of moral relativism serves their cause in the moment. And that cause? One-up-manship, pure and simple. Hate by any other name.
@Redteam: Facts don’t matter. As Obama said, “I won!”
The mob was whipped up into blaming all that ails this world as coming from Rich, White, Christian, Heterosexual men…and that is all the Rep party, or anyone opposed to the Dems, is made of.
It’s about “winning” to a liberal.
@Redteam, #35:
The VA’s problems have to do with 2 things, in my opinion:
A huge rise in demand for services owing to a decade of war and the aging of a generation of vets without a comparable increase in funding and resources to provide those services; and
Bureaucratic dysfunction, that can set in with any large organization when there’s a serious disconnect between the career security of management and performance of the organization’s real mission.
@Greg: LOL,
Sounds about right. 1. Zippy, 2, His crew.
It’s always about money, steal more and more. Are you saying that the Dimocrats, that controlled both houses and the presidency when Zippy took over didn’t recognize the problem and do anything about it? How much increase in funding did they request specifically for the VA?
So you’re saying the organization that took over in 09 wasn’t capable?
Just so you know, here is VA funding, which part wasn’t adequate?
Funding was as follows:
@Redteam, #37:
That was my answer. Whether such a bill could properly originate in the Senate depends upon whether the penalties it imposes for non-compliance are viewed as taxation or not. The case in question is Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services. No decision has yet been issued.
@Redteam. #41:
Republicans are going to have to wake up to the reality that adding a huge number of new vets with serious healthcare issues to the population relying on an already overtaxed VA healthcare system results in a predictable need for more manpower and resources—assuming that you intend to actually meet the needs of those veterans. Additional manpower and resources means you have to spend more money.
They should think about that inevitability before setting off on the next overseas military involvement. The last one will cost us around 2 trillion dollars.
@Greg: Strange, as you know the ACA was only held ‘legal’ because it was determined to be a tax. So if it is upheld as a tax, then it is illegal because it originated in the wrong house. If it is not upheld as a tax then it’s not legal under any circumstances. Sounds like Dimocrat law 101.
@Greg:
Seems as if you missed seeing the money the Repubs had put into the system before Bush left office: see my 41 above. That has to be Repub budget money because the Dims have not passed a budget since they’ve been in office.
@Greg:
What are you smoking?
Dems didn’t read the obamacare law when they alone voted to ram it down our throats….and so you blame republicans?
Dems control the Senate – and Reid, a dem, refuses to allow anything the republican controlled house votes for see the light of day on the Senate floor…and Reid controls the voting for ambassadors in the Senate….and you blame republicans for this?
Do you even realize how clueless you sound?
Probably not as clueless as some of the people republicans are sending to Congress these days.
@Greg:
And from you? Same crap, different day.
You know, at least if you were to be honest, that the veteran population in the United States is decreasing, not increasing. World War II produced the largest number of veterans, and they, along with Korean War and the Vietnam War veterans are dying off. How much so? In 2000, the total number of living veterans was approx. 25.5 million. Today, that number is down to 23 million. And with each passing year, as the veterans from the largest wars we fought die, that number will continue to get even smaller.
Yet you continue to blather falsehoods trying to support the lies of the left.
@Greg:
And I’ll raise you Sheila Jackson-Lee and Hank Johnson who was afraid too many people would make Guan tip over.
@retire05, #48:
The veteran population is getting older, which generally equates with an increased need for healthcare services. Not to mention the increased demand resulting from those who have lingering health issues as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The gradually declining total population of veterans isn’t what is relevant. What is relevant is the increasing number that will require VA healthcare services. What do you imagine accounts for the ridiculously long waiting times? Do you think a decade of war doesn’t change the arithmetic?