William Jacobson on the current Leftist campaign to keep ObamaCare sacrosanct —
Now the media pressure is mounting on Obamacare II, the subsidy case the Court accepted this term. The issue is whether the statutory language of Obamacare permits subsidies (the only way Obamacare policies are affordable for most) on the federal exchange set up when most states refused.
This issue of statutory interpretation is not exceptional legally, except that the political stakes are so high. If the statute is read not to permit the subsidies, Obamacare likely crumbles of its own weight.
Enter Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court and judicial reporter for The NY Times, with scare mongering about the legitimacy of the Court, The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court:
n the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power….
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
Oh please. This is pure hyperventilation. The statute says what it says. Democrats drafted it, but now apparently claim it was all a drafting error or the words don’t mean what they say.
Except the words say subsidies only are for state exchanges.
The good professor is right and, AFAIK, he has been consistent and forthright when dealing with authorial intent. However …
Why is anyone surprised that Leftists can, with a straight face, posit that words mean exactly what they want them to mean – not what they say as intended by the people who write them …
THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS AND NON-LEFTISTS HAVE ENABLED THEM.
All of the right-wing handwringing and brickbats tossed against Rush Limbaugh over “hope he fails”….
[and any one who defended him … ahem]
… the running to hide under the bed for any misspoken word or phrase, or even when the phrase is interpreted exactly the opposite of the speaker’s intent
“Oh my, perception is reality” They cried and exiled the offender(s).
“Moderate” Republicans let the Left control the playing field and NOW they want to complain that the language and intent is clear?
I want to slap their collective face.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Yes, hardly insightful, I know. But more and more, whenever some leftofascist opens their pie-hole, I picture their words coming out of Humpty Dumpty’s mouth.
At the risk of reiterating the obvious, it is a defining characteristic of the ruling class that momentary advantage, and not enduring principle, drives their decisionmaking.
It is a sibling of B. Franklin’s maxim about essential liberty and temporary security. We are ruled by those who think they deserve privilege — they don’t even deserve rights.
Greenhouse knows her audience.
The only question is, will Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. save the day yet again?
What’s the big deal? If they lose, just send it back to congress to be fixed, duh.
By the way, have we become so inured to Obama’s cheap moral equivalencies that we can’t be bothered to comment on them anymore?
I
Sorry ’bout that. As I was about to write: I think of a cheap but interesting moral equivalence regarding the ClownDisaster, namely this: that neither Bowe Bergdahl nor the ClownDisaster himself have yet been put against the wall, but move freely around the country as they themselves see fit. It’s a peculiar thing.
two more cheap but interesting moral equivalencies is that they’re both lazy and shiftless.
That’s right. I said it.
Anyway, as for Obama using cheap moral equivalencies as an excuse for prevarication and dithering:
One man’s excuse for terrorists is another man’s justification for freddom fighters.
Or: If they reject you, shake the dust of their rubble from your combat boots.
I’m sure Jesus said stuff like that.
[clears throat whilst looking at Ernst]
There’s mounting criticism that Mr. Obama’s defenders are attacking. Here’s hoping they are getting worn a mite thin.
[…] Back Against Those Who Would Distort OUR RELIGION For Their Nihilistic Ends” Protein Wisdom: To Be Bullied Again Would Do The Real Harm To The Supreme Court Shot In The Dark: The “Whole Foods” Vortex The Gateway Pundit: Gallup CEO Says Number […]
Greenhouse Gas wrote: …Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
Every branch, every department, of the government should always feel in peril or the wrath of the Sovereign People, at whose pleasure they serve [and get paid and get benefits from].
This is the way Constitutional Republics must work if they are to work.
But this requires that a certain number, a certain percentage, of said Sovereign People pay attention to what the government is doing.
[…] a recent post by William Jacobson [tip of the fedora to Darleen Click — whose remarks are well-worth reading on this] on the efforts by the Left In America to […]