Posted on 05/05/2020 9:03:42 AM PDT by Skywise
You really asked that? O.k. FYI
https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organization-mission-and-functions-manual-attorney-general
Note No.1: Represent the United States in Legal Matters.
Texas, et.al. v. U.S., the appeal of which will be heard by the Supreme Court during the next term. About 20 states challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare once the mandate was repealed. The Justice Department under Sessions signed on in support of the plaintiffs. Now Barr wants to change that.
You don't think that striking down health care for millions of people, continuing coverage for existing conditions, and allowing young people to remain on parents coverage isn't popular? Strike it down and see what happens.
You want Trump another 4years? I do. So you don’t give the Democrats and their media chums the perfect way to get people to vote against Trump. This is just one battle in a war that we need Trump in the White House to win. Notice Barr did not say the law should remain as is only that removing it completely at this time is not the best course of action. And he is right. There is time enough to win this battle. It is more important to keep Trump in and to gain more seats in the House.
No he doesn’t.
The logic, if logic is found here, would be that you can’t beat something with nothing, and there’s never been a consensus republican plan. Not that it would matter, since there isnt a route to passage because until there’s a solid trump-supporting majority in both the house and Senate, the House won’t pass any legislation that would let Trump look good and the Senate will stall and water down the legislation because they have donors to keep happy.
Doesn’t mean it’s a valid reason to keep bad laws on the books, but here we are.
Barr, the most ineffectual AG ever? Said something? That’s like a fart in the wind.
Nice to see a voice of reason
Too late. The administration lucked out when the Court decided not to hear the case this term. Otherwise Obamacare could well have been struck down in June. But saying that you thought it was unconstitutional last year and then suddenly deciding that it was constitutional this year isn't going to remove Texas v. U.S. from being made a campaign issue. The Democrats no doubt already have the political ads in the can ready to run. "Trump wants to take away your health care." "Trump wants to end pre-existing coverage." Since it's going to happen anyway then you might as well do the right thing and stick with supporting it.
Notice Barr did not say the law should remain as is only that removing it completely at this time is not the best course of action. And he is right.
Barr doesn't have a say in the matter since it isn't the federal government's case. It was filed by individual state Attorney Generals, and their suit is that the law is unconstitutional in its entirety. The federal government is supporting them, but I guess Barr wants to say now that Trump supports some parts of the suit but not others. That's just going to make it worse.
Maybe he’s right.... this is why Republicans have such a history of losing, unlike the left they’re not willing to take incremental gains, its all or nothing.
It’s a policy matter, not a legal matter. The USG is the client and decides what position it wishes to hold. The lawyer can provide legal advice, but the client decides what position it wants its lawyer to take. If this story is correct, which I doubt, Barr should not be involved in election strategy.
Then what do you take this to mean? "Barr and other top advisers have argued against the hard-line position for some time, warning it could have major political implications if the comprehensive health care law appears in jeopardy as voters head to the polls in November." Sounds like he wants to change it to me.
First you need a plan. Second you need to get it through the House and Senate. How are you going to do that?
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DUMP THIS MONSTROSITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is proof positive of how hard it is to remove laws no matter how stupid they are.
Yea. “Sources familiar with” = “Propaganda we want put out”.
Mind you, parts of the act do need to be struck down through court action at this time. As for a plan. I sure would hope Trump and GOP allies have thought this through and have one in place. But having such a plan means nothing if he loses in November and the Dem gain more seats. Most important to me is that we need Trump so he can appoint more justices. Not just to the Supreme Court but to Federal districts.
He’s the Attorney General, not the HHS director.
You know how to change Barr’s mind in 10 seconds? “Ok Barr. You like it? You now are on it! You have 24 hours to get on an exchange!” More and more I’m convincespd Barr is as worthless as Jeff Sessions!
Not wanting to change/scuttle it all at once is not the same thing as wanting to keep it in its entirety forever. There is also nothing to suggest he does not support parts of it being struck down by SCOTUS at this pleading.
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.