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

Woman dubbed '#PermitPatty' appears to call cops on 8-year-old girl selling water in viral video

Freedom’s Essential Hierarchy

DOJ gives Congress new classified documents on Russia probe

What Purpose Do Mosquitoes Serve?

Restaurant That Booted Sanders Closes the Next Night

The FR Griftathon Continues

Henry Kissinger’s Kind Words About President Trump: Tactical Strategy Or Hope?

Citizenship Checkpoints Start to Spread Across The Constitution-Free Zone

Poof. There Goes the Mueller Investigation

Lawsuit Argues Honking Your Car Horn Is Protected By The First Amendment

Cops Break Into Innocent Man’s Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence

'I always do my best to treat people respectfully, including those I disagree with': Sarah Sanders slams owner of restaurant who kicked out her and seven members of her family because she 'works for the president'

Three FBI Cadets

Retrospective: UNBELIEVABLE OBAMA GAFFES, Mistakes, Lies, and Confusion (as worshipful MSM still drooled over their idiotic "genius" & "cool" Prez anyway)

Trump Valiantly Tried to Save America

John McAfee says he has been poisoned, and tells culprits: 'You will soon understand the true meaning of wrath'

The Prisoner (All 17 Episodes)

Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court

The Best Places To Live In All 50 U.S. States

Mad Dog Mattis, the destroyer of Raqqa, frets about losing moral authority

What Kind of Country Are We?

Will Our Lack of Humanity Be the END of Humanity?

Hypocrisy

Evangelical Nevada Voters Back Trump-Praising Brothel Owner; 'I Want to Hurl,' CWA President Penny Nance Says

Time Magazine Corrects Cover Story on Crying Migrant Girl, Admits Family Was Never Separated

A mystery: Italy seizing migrant rescue ships, but who owns them? [Soros]

Tom Arnold says he's teaming up with Michael Cohen and 'taking Trump down'

Hoops legend Kevin McHale slammed for apparently attending Trump rally: ‘He should never work in the NBA again’

David Hogg Reappears to Take Another Stab at Destroying Laura Ingraham’s Career

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch levy internet taxes

Bombs Away! US Airstrikes Every 12 Minutes?

VULGAR OPEN-BORDERS MEDIA-HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS-DEMOCRATS DECLARE TOTAL WAR ON AMERICA & TRUMP (**MSM DIVERSIONS CREATED TO STOP SCRUTINY OF 0BAMA COUP INVOLVEMENT**)

Anti-Trump media moves goal posts after executive order in 'shameful' display of bias

Bypassing Facebook on the dark web

Bannon, Salvini, And A Powerful Catholic Cardinal Are Gunning For Pope Francis

DOJ requests military lawyers to help prosecute immigration crimes: report

Canada legalizes marijuana, sales to start on October 17

Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up?

WHY CAN’T WE SUE THE TSA FOR ASSAULT?

WATCH VIDEO: Muslim calls flight attendant a ‘fucking slut*’ and a ‘bitch for serving him what he thinks is pork – “She should have respected my religion”

James Comey And Peter Strzok Walk Into A Courtroom And Meet The America They Sold Out

Barack Obama: Liar And Nation Wrecker

Islamic Takeover Of America!

What Trump Gets Right About Europe

America the beautiful

"I'm 81 and I'm Tired"

Rachel Maddow Breaks Down in Tears Delivering News of Migrant Babies Being Detained

Disability Applications Plunge as the Economy Strengthens

Nazi Media or MSM as we know them

'Disastrous' copyright bill vote approved


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: 104
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