[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Russians sought to recruit 'assets' through social media, Senate told

Dozens of al-Shabab Extremists Killed in Somalia Airstrikes, U.S. Military Says

Investigations now entangle Donald Trump’s White House, campaign, transition, inauguration, charity and business. For Trump, the political, the personal and the deeply personal are all under examination.

The boogeyman is coming for you… no matter where in the world you are

SICKO Palestinian culture: Clip #6876 PA TV HOST DANA ABU SHAMSIYA PRAISES PALESTINIAN WHO STABBED ISRAELI POLICEMEN: HE HARVESTS SOULS ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND IS DESIRED BY THE VIRGINS OF PARADISE

EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT AL-SISI: PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE WEST TO WELCOME THEM; THEY SHOULD SOLVE THEIR OWN COUNTRIES' PROBLEMS INSTEAD

Genocidal racist Arab leader: Ahmad Shukairy, ‘father’ of ‘Apartheid’ slander

Gamal Abdel Nasser interviewed in English.

Underground Bishops Expected to Subject Themselves to Communist Ones Favored by Pope as Sign of Obedience

Why did Jeb Bush get Scared after He Saw The Note from Secret Service?

Kansas Supreme Court Says Cops Can Search A House Without A Warrant As Long As They Claim They Smelled Marijuana

The Twilight of Asset Forfeiture? (Copsuckers weep)

Investigations look at Trump’s life from all angles

VICE

French Government Threatens Town With A Fine Of 2000 Euros A Day If It Does Not Remove Nativity Set

Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act.

Faithful Flock to Pay Tribute to Effigy of Virgin Mary That Appeared Near Artesia Church ...

Federal judge in Texas strikes Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act Affordable Care Act

Feds Fine Business $60,000 for Selling Non-Prescription Contact Lenses Without a Prescription

Policing For Profit: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Perverted American Law Enforcement

BREAKING: Trump Names Mick Mulvaney Acting Chief of Staff

Sondra Locke, frequent co-star in Clint Eastwood films, dead at 74

Vox: Change the Constitution so Ocasio-Cortez Can Run for President!

Scott Adams: How Google is Ruining my Life for Political Reason

Congress Hid Illegal Legislation in Farm Bill to Further Support Horrific Genocide in Yemen and It Passed

Boy Scouts On Verge Of Bankruptcy

If Cannabis Can Kill "Incurable" Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

Karma’s a B---h

Teenage Sisters Legally Recorded Police, Who Tackled Them to the Ground

Bizarre Clouds of Aluminum-Coated Material Appear on Radar Across the US

Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors

Why Christians Should Embrace Free Markets, With Guest Fr. Robert Sirico

Russian spy Maria Butina pleads guilty to engaging in conspiracy against US

Trump cancels White House Christmas party for the press

SKEWERED ALIVE Factory robot impales worker with 10 foot-long steel spikes after horror malfunction

Indiana Police Chief Promoting As Many Bad Cops As He Can To Supervisory Positions

MEET THE BOARD OF THE FUSION GPS-LINKED GROUP INVESTIGATING TRUMP

Richard Painter Says There’s Only 1 Way Out For Trump Now

78-Year-Old Man in Wheelchair Evicted to Freezing Streets for Treating Pain With Legal Medical Pot

As Gov’t Failed to Provide, Anarchists Stepped in to Help Fire Refugees Living in a Walmart Parking Lot

NJ State Police to launch Nazi-style door-to-door gun magazine confiscation campaign… at gunpoint, of course… NJ declares WAR on its own residents

U.S. Steel Stock Has Dropped 57 Percent Since Trump's Tariffs Were Announced

Stoneman Douglas report calls on the sheriff's office to investigate SEVEN deputies who 'failed to confront Nikolas Cruz during the horrific mass school shooting'

Catholic Couple and St.Pete

IT MAY BE TIME TO QUIT THINKING!

Parents of pregnant woman shot in Ofra attack: ‘She opened her eyes and cried’

Google CEO Had To Explain To Congress Why Googling ‘Idiot’ Shows Donald Trump

PELOSI, SCHUMER PLEAD TO TRUMP: ‘LET’S DEBATE’ BORDER FUNDS ‘IN PRIVATE’ Pelosi said they did not come to debate border funding ‘in public view’

'Terror' at Christmas market: 'Islamist' who shot dead three people and wounded 13 in Strasbourg had been identified as 'a threat to the state' it is revealed as manhunt continues

Police use facial recognition doorbells to create private watchlist networks


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Oh my: DOJ will no longer defend parts of ObamaCare in court
Source: HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06 ... -defend-parts-obamacare-court/
Published: Jun 8, 2018
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2018-06-08 17:19:51 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 270
Comments: 4

Man, what a day for bad Obama precedents. First the DOJ follows O’s lead by seizing records from a reporter to find a leaker, then it announces it’ll selectively refuse to defend disfavored federal statutes in court, just like the last administration did with DOMA.

Imagine how furious the left would be at these Justice Department affronts to freedom of the press and the rule of the law if they hadn’t pioneered them. Thanks, Obama!

It feels strange that the executive branch has to try to tank ObamaCare in court to get it undone when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, but we’ve already been there, done that on legislative solutions. Time for Plan B. The catalyst for this decision is a lawsuit filed by various red states against ObamaCare claiming that, by SCOTUS’s own reasoning, the entirety of O-Care is now unconstitutional. How do they figure that? Because, if you remember John Roberts’s opinion from the ObamaCare ruling in 2012, the law is valid only because the individual mandate counts as a tax for constitutional purposes. Because Congress has the power to tax, it has the power to issue the mandate. And the mandate is the foundation for the entire program. Four justices were prepared to rule in 2012 that the whole law was unconstitutional because the mandate was.

Last year, though, the GOP repealed the mandate’s financial penalty. It used to be that if you refused to buy health insurance, you’d be fined — or “taxed” — a certain percentage of your income by the IRS. The mandate is still technically on the books but there’s no longer any penalty for refusing to comply with it. Which means there’s no tax. And if there’s no tax then there’s no longer any constitutional basis to support ObamaCare. The DOJ now agrees with that view, although rather than insist that the entire program has become unconstitutional, they’re claiming that only certain specific parts are, most notably the requirement that insurers must cover people regardless of preexisting conditions. (The ObamaCare insurance exchanges, for instance, should be left untouched in the DOJ’s view.) The idea is that if there’s no longer any revenue from the mandate to finance coverage for the sick then insurers can’t very well be expected to finance coverage for sick. So the DOJ will no longer argue that they should. If the courts agree with them, the entire program will be effectively eviscerated.

The department’s argument, if adopted by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, “would be breathtaking in its effect,’ said Timothy Jost, a retired Washington and Lee law professor who follows such litigation closely. “Of all of the actions the Trump administration has taken to undermine individual insurance markets, this may be the most destabilizing. . . . [If] I’m an insurer, I don’t know what I am supposed to do or not.”

Jost, an ACA supporter, noted that the administration’s decision not to defend the law comes during the season when participating insurers must file their rates for next year with state regulators. It raises new questions about whether insurers still will be required to charge the same prices to all customers, healthy or sick

University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley, another ACA defender, went even further in a blog post. “If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books,” he wrote. “That’s not a rule of law I recognize. That’s a rule by whim. And it scares me.”

That’s true, and it was also true seven years ago when Obama decided that DOMA offended his conscience too much to let the DOJ do its job. Little late to complain now.

If you’re wondering what happens now in court, presumably the court will appoint a third party to defend the law in place of the DOJ. That’s happened before, and not just with DOMA. Near the end of the Clinton administration, SCOTUS took up a case that invited them to overturn the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, which famously required cops to warn suspects of their right to remain silent when they were in custody. The DOJ sided with the petitioner and asked the Court *not* to overturn the decision. The Court ended up inviting a third party to argue the case for overruling Miranda. It didn’t work — the Rehnquist Court upheld the decision, probably on “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” logic — but lest you thought the DOJ refusing to defend O-Care means the red states would win their lawsuit by “forfeit,” think again. The courts will let someone argue for ObamaCare, probably the 16 blue-state AGs who have already filed an amicus brief in support of the statute.

The politics here are interesting too. Righties will exult if SCOTUS ends up smashing Obama’s greatest “achievement” by agreeing with the DOJ that repealing the mandate penalty tore the heart out of the law. But lefties may be okay with that too. It hands them a talking point they crave to explain rising ObamaCare premiums: Republicans are to blame. The part of the law requiring coverage for preexisting conditions is its most popular feature; if Dems can draw a straight line between that feature going away and the DOJ-enabled red-state initiative in court, they think they’ll clean up this fall or in 2020. A loss in court for ObamaCare thus wouldn’t be a total loss for Dems, especially if they end up in charge of the House next year and have a seat at the table. Pelosi’s already chattering about “Medicare for all,” never mind that we can’t even afford Medicare for some. If the courts give America a clean-ish slate on health-care reform, that may not go the way we’re hoping. Although, given the Dems’ drift leftward, they’re headed towards something more statist than O-Care whether the courts blow up the law or not. Might as well get on with it.


Poster Comment:

Pen. And. Phone.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

then it announces it’ll selectively refuse to defend disfavored federal statutes in court, just like the last administration did with DOMA.

I wonder if the MSM will remind people of this fact.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-06-08   17:30:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

I wonder if the MSM will remind people of this fact.

I'll take the under on that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   17:55:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#2)

I'll take the under on that.

It's a pretty safe bet.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   18:14:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Should have not pissed off someone that can fight back!

Justified  posted on  2018-06-08   19:08:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com