Gruber: My 2012 remarks were “a speak-o”

In a sense, Jonathan Gruber’s response today to the emergence of his 2012 explanation for the language in ObamaCare mirrors the attempt to get courts to ignore the plain text of the statute and instead rule based on the most current interpretation. The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn reached out to Gruber to get his reaction to the emergence of the Nobilis video in which the architect of ObamaCare explains that the restriction of subsidies to states with their own exchanges was a rational attempt to coerce states into creating those exchanges, rather than shifting the burden back to the federal government. Gruber calls that “a speak-o — you know, like a typo”:

I’ve seen not only the so called speako, but the actual minutes from congressional hearings. Denying subsidies to those states that chose not to have exchanges was not only a part of the law, it was a main feature. The Dems wanted a hammer to hit reluctant governors over the head with. Ahhh.but they guessed the politics wrong. Folks don’t want the law or the state exchanges.

If the courts pull the Dems chestnuts out of the fire on this one I will be pissed, but mostly I’ll be heartbroken because we will have indeed reached banana republic status if that happens.

Regarding Gruber's "speak-o," please consider the following, previously posted in related threads.

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regardless what Gruber and activist justices want everybody to think about ~~Obamacare~~ Democratcare, it remains that the Supreme Court had historically clarified that states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

And for those RINOs and Democrats who would argue that, since the Constitutions doesn't say that the feds cannot do something, that means that they can do it, the Supremes have also address that foolish thinking too.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So what Mr. Gruber needs to do if he wants the Democratcare law that he helped to write actually be constitutional is the following. He needs to encourage Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the states. And if the states choose to ratify Mr. Gruber's amendment then Congress will actually have the power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes and Mr. Gruber will be a hero.

I messed up on the Court excerpts in post 7 of this thread. They should read as follows.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. oo., 1837.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

Poor Gruber. This arrogant SOB got caught with his pants down not once but twice, and now he is trying to talk his way out of it and trying to save Obamacare at the same time.

1. Grubers: We have all met Grubers in our lives.

2. They believe that they are the smartest persons in the room.

3 No mistakes: But the main thing about them is this: They believe that they don't mistakes like us ordinary humans, or they believe that they rarely make mistakes.

3. My point is this: Gruber did not make a mistake when he talked about how only State exchanges could apply for Obamacare subsidies, because he said it at least twice. He knew exactly what he was saying.

4. Since he wrote the law, I bet that he is one of the few persons who has read every word over and over. He probably even memorized the whole damn thing.

5. I can hear know-it-all Gruber defending himself:"Who are you going to believe, me or you own lying eyes?"

6. I say this to Gruber and his partner in crime Obama: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

“Lying in defense of a liberal goal is no vice,” to bastardize a phrase from Barry Goldwater.

The sad part of this is that while this is strong evidence that the “state exchange” language was intentional, it can’t be considered, because the case will be decided on appeal. It’s my understanding (legal Freepers please jump in) that the appeal process looks to flaws in the judge’s actions or application of the law, not new evidence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.