Posted on 02/21/2015 8:10:55 AM PST by DrC
As the SCOTUS oral arguments in King v. Burwell draw near, the cacophony from liberal outlets is nearly deafening. The plaintiffs’ position is “absurd ,” they cry. Congress “never contemplated withholding premium subsidies” in noncooperative states. Even the Obama administration argued that “it would have been perverse for Senators concerned about federalism to insist on pressuring States to participate in the implementation of a federal statute.”[1]
Perverse? Jonathan Gruber (whose position on the issue is “complicated”[2]) is equally disdainful, calling the challengers’ stance “nutty,” “stupid,” and a “screwy interpretation” of the law.
Really? Were Obamacare architects incapable of using “sticks” masquerading as “carrots” to coerce states into setting up Exchanges?
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The Pinkos are saying that Americans are crazy to think we can stop their takeover.
Congress [Pelosi] did what she did in the dead of night against all objection and wholly without review by ANY of her side, or her opposition’s side [they never saw the legislation]. She bypassed the reconciliation process between the Senate and House and ‘deemed’ it passed.
It didn’t matter what she meant because passage was all that was wanted. And in that respect, the bitch got what she wanted, but it appears it is not what she wanted after all. Screw her. Screw intent. Screw common [scrivener’s] error.
What they wrought has to go forward for review on its own [de]merit and let the judges rule on that - if they have the balls to fulfill their constitutional obligations honestly.
My guess it is going to be a 5-4 ruling in favor of King.
Both the House and the Senate have an opportunity to help. They should each pass a “sense of the House/Senate resolution” proclaiming that in their legislation, they intend their words to mean precisely what they write. When they clearly wrote that subsidies would be available for subscribers who signed up through exchanges setup by a state, they meant precisely that subsidies would be available only to subscribers who register through an exchange setup by a state. If their bodies intended another understanding, they wouldn’t have specified the state setup requirement.
Everything they say sounds like it’s been pulled from posts at democrats underground.
And then.....
I agree.
The issues here have to do with exchanges set up by the states as opposed to the exchange run by the federal government.
The fact that there is confusion here is an indictment of passing 2000 page bills which nobody has read. Its an indictment of the Gruber process of intentionally making legislation and policies more complex than they need to be.
What does it say about the liberals that there was such a glaring error or loophole in their legislation? What does not say about 2000 page bills on any subject?
Don’t ask me where it sounds like they pulled it from.
All this O-care court challenge thing has been down in the detailed workings of the law. To me, the best way to look at it is from the top down. It it beyond obvious that the reason the law was written was to effect control over the citizens, NOT to provide healthcare. Two things make that obvious: 1) the government could have gone out into the marketplace and bought health insurance at vastly lower costs to cover the uninsured, and 2)the law enacted a mind boggling array of new bureaucracies and boards to implement the thing, which by its nature erects roadblocks and curbs on individual choice and freedom that make good economic sense for the individual citizens.
If, in fact, the obvious control intent is true, then the whole thing reeks as being unconstitutional because our Constitution was written to preserve individual liberty. O-care is the antithesis of individual liberty, so it violates the very spirit and intent of the Constitution.
Those who complicate matters usually have ill intent.
Same place.
The realities of Faculty Lounge governance are becoming more and more apparent each and every day.
Somewhat agree. However you give Pelosi too much credit even perceptibly equating her with someone with enough education and intelligence to obtain the credentials to teach, even in today’s world of affirmative action.
Congress never READ the frikkin' thing
Any ... ANY statement that begins with or uses the the phrase of "Congress never .. " or "Congress did .. " is a straw man argument ... CONGRESS NEVER READ THE THING AND WAS FORCED TO PASS IT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE DOING !!!
It's a moot point to argue if they were forced or not ... the point is ... no one knew what was in it so they can not be accused of determining anything
"Congress “never contemplated withholding premium subsidies”
is a boojit statement to fool stupid people into thinking this is a legitimate legislative act
Jonathan Gruber ping.
You are correct.
Since Congress didn’t know at was in it, it Constitutionally is not a valid Law.
Congress “never contemplated withholding premium subsidies” in noncooperative states... From what Nancy Pelosi said, famously, Congress “never contemplated.
There is no confusion here. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing when they were forced to compromise after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.
What caught them by surprise was the refusal of so many Red states to go along. That's why they are faking "confusion" now. They want a do-over, to get out of the compromise they were forced to make before.
-PJ
It’s certainly the case that if this bill had been passed under “regular order” there would have been much more in the way of documentation (e.g.. conference committee report, more extensive floor debate etc.) from which to hypothetically infer congressional intent. But especially once Dems lost their 60th vote when Scott Brown won the special election on January 19, 2010, regular order got tossed out the window. The final bill was crafted in secret in the leaders’ chambers and few of the dutiful minions voting for the mess that emerged bothered to read it. It was a classic case study in why no sane person would ever want to put these clowns in charge of 1/6 of the economy in the first place.
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.