[Hotlanta Mike]

Wonder if there’s a case for quo warranto here? Anyone explored that yet?

For those who are unfamiliar with it:

Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for “by what warrant?”) is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or “franchise”) they claim to hold.

---

Why do you believe Obama wants to stack the D.C courts with this Senate maneuver Harry Reid did with the nuclear option? Because that’s where a quo warranto would be heard.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I think he wants to stack all federal courts with judicial activists who are like-minded ideologues. He's such an arrogant POS that I doubt he's thinking about quo warranto. If he is thinking about it, he's dismissing it.

[firebrand]

I'm sure now that that is correct. Yesterday I posted something about a New York Times story on abortion "rights" being behind the rule change. I wondered about it at the time: Why would the Times pointing this out? Now it's clear to me: Because it's not about abortion. The Times only wants us to think that. It's about stacking the Second Circuit court so these legal challenges won't make it through. Makes a lot more sense. There are two excellent cases now: origination and the fact that the law expressly forbids the federal exchanges to grant subsidies. As was pointed out in the hearings today. The origination one is more important right now, because if it doesn't win, we effectively have no more origination clause. The other is egregious but just about money (except in how it adds to the many times 0 has ignored the law, and how it adds to the general aura of lawlessness at the top. And of course further redistributes income.