The Fallout From Reid's "Nuclear Option"
For years, Harry Reid refused to act. He struck deals with Republicans (that always soon collapsed), and shied away from using what was called (at the time) the "nuclear option." As a result, judicial and other presidential nominations languished in the Senate, unvoted-upon. Because Republicans could filibuster any nominee they wished, they essentially decided to filibuster all of them. Finally, late last year, Harry Reid had had enough. He called for a vote to change the Senate's rules (fun historical note: the filibuster is not actually mentioned in the Constitution), and from that point on all executive and judicial nominees (below the Supreme Court) would be confirmed only by a majority up-or-down vote. We are about to see why this was so important, in the current "Obamacare can't give subsidies to customers of the federal exchange" court case.
The fight over filibustering nominations (right when Harry pulled the nuclear trigger) centered on the D.C. Circuit Court, which was supposed to have 11 judges but currently had three vacancies and only eight sitting judges. Republicans, laughably, were contending that President Obama was somehow trying to "pack" this court, by exercising his constitutional duty to fill pre-existing judicial vacancies. This was the sheerest of bunkum, but that's what the party line from Republicans actually was, at the time. Obama had nominated three people to fill the vacancies, all of whom were being filibustered. The Republicans were upset because the other eight justices were perfectly balanced (4-to-4) between Democratic nominees and Republican nominees. If Obama was allowed to add three more, this would lead to a significant majority on the court for Democrats. Republicans refused to allow votes on any of the three candidates, and signaled that this wasn't due to objecting to any of the candidates' credentials, but rather for purely partisan reasons, backed up by a seriously flawed interpretation of the Constitution and what F.D.R. tried to do a long time ago. To put this another way: no candidate nominated by Obama was going to get a confirmation vote in the Senate, period.
This is what Reid changed. The first three votes scheduled after the nuclear option was launched were the three candidates for the D.C. Circuit Court who had been held up. They were all confirmed. The court's balance now stands at 7-4.
This is the same court where three judges just ruled that the federal government can't pay subsidies to people through the federal Obamacare exchange, and that only states with their own exchanges can do so. The three judges hearing the case voted 2-1, on partisan lines. Their legal reasoning is shaky, taking one clause of one sentence of a massive law out of context, and then shoehorning the rest of the law to fit this one interpretation. This is why three federal judges from another circuit court ruled exactly the opposite on the same day -- unanimously. Out of six judges ruling that day, four ruled that if you take the entire rest of the law into context, it is ridiculous to read that one clause differently -- especially when it negates so many other clauses in the same law. But only one of these four was on the panel that heard the case in the D.C. Circuit Court.
The next legal move, everyone assumes, will be an appeal to the full court. All 11 members of the court, sitting en banc, will re-hear the case. And seven of them were appointed by Democrats. In other words, this ruling will very likely be overturned. But only because Harry Reid dropped the nuke.
Whatever the full court decides, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court as the final step, perhaps from both circuit courts. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that the Supreme Court will not even bother to hear the case. Perhaps this is unjustified optimism (pun intended, I suppose), but the precedents are so clear and the legal reasoning so obvious that I think the Supreme Court won't even bother with the case, and just affirm the lower courts' rulings upholding the subsidies. There are two big precedents staring the Supreme Court in the face, one of which states that when there is ambiguity in such cases (a difference between the law's language and its implementation), the executive agency is deferred to. In other words, the tie goes to the runner, and the runner is the Obama administration. The second big precedent is found within a previous ruling by the Supreme Court on whether Obamacare itself was legal or not. In this decision, even some of the conservative members of the court wrote into their opinion language which assumed that the federal and state exchanges were legally equal.
That's all pure speculation for the future, however. What is important here is the history of D.C. Circuit Court appointees. This circuit court is seen as one of the biggest stepping stones to being nominated to the Supreme Court itself, historically. It hears cases of great constitutional import, much more so than other federal circuit courts. The court's political balance (OK, technically courts aren't supposed to be political in any way, but that's pretty Utopian thinking, these days) swings back and forth as a consequence of who gets elected president, and for how long. That's the way the Constitution set the whole thing up, and is not a bug but rather a feature. President Obama was elected twice to his job. In the past, when Republicans have nominated federal justices, Democrats only filibustered candidates they thought were unqualified to sit on the bench. Republicans used to extend the same courtesy to Democratic presidents (Lindsey Graham is one of the few left who still mostly follow this tradition, I should mention). The across-the-board obstructionism for purely political reasons is new to this president, though.
Harry Reid tried to cut individual deals with Republicans, to move nominees through the Senate. What usually happened was -- almost always right before a vacation period -- Reid threatened to keep the Senate in session if Republicans wouldn't allow a certain number of nominees their up-or-down vote, and furthermore from that point on the Republicans wouldn't filibuster everyone in sight any more. While the first part of this deal often worked to move a few dozen nominees through the system, the second part always remained in tatters after a very short time, as Republicans started once again filibustering every single nominee.
Finally, last year, Reid was tired of getting suckered. He went nuclear, so to speak. As a result, judicial nominees are now routinely confirmed in a timely fashion. And as a direct result, the D.C. Circuit Court that is about to re-hear the Obamacare subsidy case is going to be a whole lot friendlier to the Obama administration's argument. That is a change that is going to be felt for a long time to come, since federal judges are lifetime appointments. It's even entirely possible that one of the judges who rules on the case may eventually sit on the Supreme Court.
There is one possible downside to the story, though. When Reid acted, he absolutely enraged the Senate Republicans. Reid's rule change only affected executive branch nominees and judicial nominees below the level of the Supreme Court -- and not (as many uninformed people assumed) the legislative filibuster, which still remains completely intact. However, this November the Republicans will have, from all accounts, at least a 50-50 shot of taking control of the Senate. Reid's "nuclear option" may mushroom (again, pun definitely intended) into a thermonuclear, H-bomb explosion if Republicans do win the Senate. Because there will then be nothing to stop Mitch McConnell from changing the Senate rules once again, this time with respect to legislation. In this not-so-farfetched case, we could see (as early as next year) the complete death of the filibuster. Whether this will ultimately prove to be a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen, but it will also be a somewhat-direct result of Harry Reid's actions, so it must be taken into account (I use the term "somewhat-direct" because Republicans may have just gone ahead and jettisoned the filibuster anyway, but Reid's action certainly gives them a certain degree of political cover to now do so).
[Program Note: For a full rundown of the arguments circulating right after Harry Reid "pulled the trigger" on the nuclear option, I would encourage you to check out my previous "Friday Talking Points [283]" column. Scroll down to the "Most Impressive" category, which went to Harry Reid that particular week (no surprise). Or, if pressed for time, read this one article from the Washington Post, which hilariously begins: "If the Founding Fathers could see the Senate after today's vote by Senate Democrats to prohibit filibusters of most presidential appointments, they would, of course, be appalled. 'What are all these women doing here?' they would ask." Funny, but the article then goes on to make a very strong case for Reid's action.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
To give credit where it's due, the last paragraph of this article was inspired by a Michale comment on an earlier article.
Got me thinking...
Anyway, like I said: credit where it is due.
-CW
The senate went slightly more majoritarian, not exactly the world ending. Is the filibuster useful? Sure I suppose, but since nearly every parliamentary style of government has nothing like that, and further, functions just fine. I think we'll be ok if the senate becomes more like the house.
And seriously, the US governmental system has enough roadblocks and checkpoints explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Made up ones aren't really necessary, and further, each body is allowed to create it's own rules. So I'm willing to wait and see, a rule is just a rule.
Oh, and LizM, here's an article for you to check out:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/biden-agenda
Lengthy profile...
:-)
-CW
YoYo -
Yeah, I'm of two minds myself.
On the one hand, I think it'd be a fair turnabout for Democrats to block everything McConnell wanted to do for a few years, should the GOP take the Senate.
But that's just petty, really. On an abstract level (personal feelings aside), I agree that the Senate was indeed meant to be majority-rule by the founders, and have long advocated for ANY sort of filibuster reform to happen.
If Republicans got rid of it, moreover, then they certainly couldn't complain if the Dems took back the Senate in 2016 and kept the no-filibuster rule. Once Nixon went to China, a Dem going to China wasn't really news (or controversial), to put it another way.
Ironically, we may see a rather odd situation if this scenario does come to pass. If McConnell, for instance, moves for a rule change to abolish the legislative filibuster, would he also move to get rid of it for SCOTUS justices? Or would we find ourselves in the situation where the ONLY remaining filibuster rule was for Supreme Court nominees? That would be a little weird, right?
There'll be some pain, no matter which side gets rid of the filibuster (if it comes to pass), but after the initial adjustment period, it may lead to a more workable Congress. So, like you said, we'll see, we'll see...
-CW
To give credit where it's due, the last paragraph of this article was inspired by a Michale comment on an earlier article.
Got me thinking...
Anyway, like I said: credit where it is due.
Ya'all can't see it, but I'm blushing.. :D
It will be interesting to see how the GOP conducts business once they own Congress completely...
What will be REALLY interesting to see is the reaction from the Left if the GOP exactly mirrors the actions of Senate Democrats when they had effective control..
The dynamics at work will be fascinating to bear witness to.. :D
Michale
Sure I suppose, but since nearly every parliamentary style of government has nothing like that, and further, functions just fine.
I would wager you a thousand quatloos that the denizens of those governments would argue that their government "functions just fine".. :D
Made up ones aren't really necessary, and further, each body is allowed to create it's own rules. So I'm willing to wait and see, a rule is just a rule.
OK, so we're agreed..
No one here will have ANY problem when the GOP Senate changes the rules to further their own agenda...
I am glad we got that on the record.. :D
Michale
Once Nixon went to China, a Dem going to China wasn't really news (or controversial), to put it another way.
"Only Nixon could go to China"
-Old Vulcan Proverb...
:D
Michale
Their legal reasoning is shaky, taking one clause of one sentence of a massive law out of context, and then shoehorning the rest of the law to fit this one interpretation.
Really???
For that claim of "shaky" to stick, you would have to have SOME evidence of the intent..
Ironically enough, there IS evidence of the intent of those that created the law...
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.
-Jonathan Gruber, Advisor To The HealthCare Law
So, clearly the intent was to extort the states into creating their own exchanges..
"You don't create an exchange, you don't get the subsidies"...
So, not only do we have the clear and concise wording of the law itself, we have one of the architects of the law stating clearly that the INTENT was to withhold the subsidies from the states that didn't create their own exchanges..
So, let's talk about "shaky", shall we?? :D
Michale
Thanks, Chris, for the New Yorker link. It was mostly a fair profile.
Unfortunately for Biden, he has never had the time or inclination to court the media and there are very few journalists worth their own salt who really understand who Biden is and what motivates him.
Assuming the republicans do achieve control of the senate, I for one would be fine with the current rules on the filibuster remaining in place. The senates job here is to advise and consent, which under the last two administrations was increasingly not getting done.
Unfortunately the snapping turtle, that will be replacing dopey dog will probably just go all in and try to remove the filibuster for a plethora of legislative issues. Which I am completely against as it is a cheap way of depriving the minority of the ability to be heard on legislative matters (assuming of course that they are actually legislating vs just looking out for their pocket books at the expense of mine).
What will be interesting to watch is if Biden as the acting senate president simply declares ol' snappy's new rules unconstitutional and resets the rules to some fictional "norm". That my friends would certainly be an interesting precedent setter of an action.
"That's the way the Constitution set the whole thing up, and is not a bug but rather a feature."
Could it be characterized as a "buggy feature." The main bug, as I see it, is a tendency to nominate younger judges who will hang on for decades. I think fixed terms, say 8 years would preserve judicial independence, and favor selection on the basis of competence without bias towards expected longevity.
Here a constitutional question I can't answer to my satisfaction. Could a quorum of the senate constitutionally adopt the following rule?
"Current rules of this chamber shall remain in force in perpetuity."
"The court's political balance (OK, technically courts aren't supposed to be political in any way, but that's pretty Utopian thinking, these days) swings back and forth as a consequence of who gets elected president, and for how long. That's the way the Constitution set the whole thing up, and is not a bug but rather a feature."
Actually, neither.--Interesting fact: the constitution doesn't mention political parties. Partisan party loyalty superceding constituent interests and oath of office is not by constitutional design.
Neither is the toleration of biased judges and justices pragmatic versus utopian. The constitution provides remedies for such a case. Our apathetic acceptance of judicial corruption is all our own doing.
Actually, neither.--Interesting fact: the constitution doesn't mention political parties. Partisan party loyalty superceding constituent interests and oath of office is not by constitutional design.
Just human nature...
At least for those humans that can't rise above it.. :D
Michale
Michale,
As always your "evidence" is misleading and irrelevant. Gruber made that comment in January 2012. ACA was enacted in 2010. There's no evidence Gruber's opinion reflects the will of Congress.
Gruber was just trying to encourage states to establish exchanges. As the IRS opinion confirming subsidies for federal exchanges as well didn't occur until May 2012, Gruber's remarks simply reflected the legal consequences under the prevailing rules. Not the intent of the law, or the intent of Congress. That interpretation is a right-wing misrepresentation for which there is no supporting evidence, resulting from the usual cherry-picked statements presented out of context.
As always your "evidence" is misleading and irrelevant. Gruber made that comment in January 2012. ACA was enacted in 2010. There's no evidence Gruber's opinion reflects the will of Congress.
Other than the fact that Gruber was an ADVISOR to TrainWreckCare and his input was sought...
Gruber was just trying to encourage states to establish exchanges.
AS WAS THE LAW ITSELF..
If the intent was to provide subsidies for BOTH Federal and State exchanges, WHY WASN'T THAT CODED INTO THE LAW??
Gruber's remarks simply reflected the legal consequences under the prevailing rules.
EXACTLY...
The consequences were that, if the states did not set up their own exchange, their citizens would NOT get the subsidies..
That interpretation is a right-wing misrepresentation for which there is no supporting evidence, resulting from the usual cherry-picked statements presented out of context.
And yet, NOTHING in the law says that those who sign up thru a Federal exchange will get subsidies..
WHY is that??
I know the answer, but I want to see if you are as smart as I think you are.. :D
Michale
You misunderstand me Michale, As usual though.
But before lew dan fires backs, It's not about "furthering your agenda," it's about governing the country on a basic level. Vacancies NEED to be filled, because case loads are ridiculous.
And lets say the Republicans do away with the filibuster entirely. You know what would happen then? The only people who would be to blame for legislative inaction would be Republicans. But since they don't really have any ideas, all we'll see is two more years of votes to "defund" obamacare that this time run into a presidential veto instead of a democratic filibuster. So really, no difference at all. Still not happening conservatives.
As a brief aside, political parties might not be mentioned in the constitution and opposed by some of the founders. (and really we need to stop creating a hagiographic glow around some rich white slave-owners, yes they came up with decent system, but as our current problems show, it's far from being perfect or ideal) It's a natural evolution from the incentive systems created by the constitution. The american system incentivizes creating large opposing blocs because there are no benefits to coming in third and barely any for coming in second. As opposed to say a parlaimentary system where as long as you get into parliament you can have much more power than your numbers suggest. More like being the swing vote on the supreme court rather than the independant who everyone ignores.
It's not about "furthering your agenda," it's about governing the country on a basic level.
And yet, Democrats only govern by their agenda, cutting out the GOP at every turn..
But since they don't really have any ideas,
The GOP has PLENTY of ideas..
They just don't have ideas that Democrats approve of...
Yer entire premise is built on ONE premise..
That Democrats are always right and Republicans are always wrong..
It's a premise borne of ideological slavery and political bigotry and has very little to do with reality...
As is always the case with bigotry...
Michale
Yer entire premise is built on ONE premise..
You know what I meant.. :D
Michale
It's not about "furthering your agenda," it's about governing the country on a basic level.
So you are saying that, if Democrats prove as obstructionist as the GOP has been, you won't mind if the GOP gets rid of the filibuster so they can "govern on a basic level"???
I have a feeling that you would mind it greatly because you don't WANT the GOP to govern...
You would want the GOP to fail just as the Democrats have failed, even if it hurts the country...
As I said.. Everyone here is a Democrat first and an American second..
For those who actually ARE Americans, of course.. :D
Michale
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369.html
CNN poll says that 33 percent of Americans want Obama impeached....
Once again, you can't compare Bubba's impeachment to Obama's impeachment...
Slick Willie's numbers were sixty+.. Obama's are below 40....
Michale
"I have a feeling that you would mind it greatly because you don't WANT the GOP to govern."
Lol. The GOP doesn't WANT to govern, would expose the inherent contradiction of wanting a lifetime gig in government in order to kill government.
Just take the latest immigration kerfuffle. All evidence points to the fact that our current system is broken and a comprehensive overhaul is required. Republicans would rather bitch about how the current system is underfunded and refuse to fund it in the same breath. If the GOP wants to govern, it really wouldn't take much effort, just do something other than going after obamacare. But you guys won't, and can't, because the only thing republicans agree on is opposition to Obama. Chris points it out all the time, but if you REALLY had any ideas on how to govern the country you would actually have a piece of legislation or two from the house showing what you would enact once you got power. But you don't.
It's really not even that hard, democrats do it all the time. ENDA, the Immigration bill just to name two off the top of my head. You can't even name one! I know it must really hurt for you to acknowledge that the republicans are too incompetent to even pass legislation in the house they control, but the stats don't lie.
Michale,
The law does provide for federal exchange subsidies. And the reason the IRS issued rules to make it clear use of federal exchanges would qualify for subsidies is that it was not the intent of Congress to coerce states into creating exchanges.
You take two unrelated facts; That Gruber was one of ACA's architects. And that at the time of his remarks no IRS rule authorizing subsidies for federal exchanges was in place, and claim they "prove" yet a third unrelated point, that Congress only authorized subsidies for state exchanges. But nothing about the two facts you present suggest anything of the sort!
Gruber was speaking to the enforcement rules for ACA established by the IRS. Gruber didn't write the rules, and he wasn't speaking about the legislative process.
Congress doesn't write the rules for implementing and enforcing the law. That's what the executive branch is for. And rules don't spring into being immediately complete and comprehensive. They are developed over time because the underlying issues are complex.
You, and conservatives, pile one misrepresentation upon another, liberally spiced with unsubstantiated innuendo and faulty logic, topped by paranoid conspiracies, and served up to the willfully gullible as "fact."
The plain truth is that nothing you've stated remotely even implies, much less "proves" any of your wild accusations! But, like you, about thirty percent of the population, generally self-identifying as "conservatives" will believe anything and everything that says Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are engaged in some nefarious scheme to "victimize" them in some way.
Which is why around thirty percent have been polling against Obama polices since the day that he took office. Thirty to thirty-five percent negative polls, say nothing about Obama. They only confirm the continued blind partisanship of conservatives. You were crowing over those same numbers two years ago when you, and all the other Republicans, were so sure Obama was going to take a haircut at the polls and be a one-term President!
I'm sure that like a broken clock you'll eventually be accidentally correct. And take it as "proof" of you prescience. Your past failed predictions being conveniently forgotten and ignored, as always.
Just as you always find negative polls of around thirty percent just so damning for Obama! As if perpetually ignorant of the fact that around thirty percent claim that they're Republicans. And--[gasp!]--they're irrationally partisan!
TheStig [11] -
Sure, the Senate could vote their laws for all perpetuity. But then a future Senate could change that with another vote. Nothing stopping them from doing so.
LewDan [14] -
That's true, but even at the very beginning it was understood perfectly: the president nominates judges who share his constitutional philosophy and outlook -- it's one of the perks of the job. Federalist judges got up to some serious political shenanigans, in the 1790s (less than 10 years after the Constitution was enacted). So while "political parties" isn't expressly mentioned, the concept of the president appointing judges to his liking has always been understood.
Michale [15] -
You're wrong. When the CBO scored the bill, they considered all exchanges to be eligible for subsidies. If the intent of Congress had been any different, the Dems would have howled and demanded the CBO re-score the bill (as doing so would have made Obamacare less costly). They didn't. They didn't for a reason -- because that was not the law's intent. As the CBO and Congress both understood.
[17] -
Yeah, the Republicans have plenty of ideas. But they can't agree on ANY of them. Still waiting for a bill from the GOP House that deals with "border security" or even a replacement for Obamacare. They can't pass them because they can't agree on anything. It's not just having ideas that count, it's getting them passed. Here's an example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/obamacare-plan-john-boehner_n_5618180.html
[20] -
Clinton's numbers didn't skyrocket until Republicans actually impeached him. Be patient... and watch what happens when Boehner files his lawsuit...
YoYo [21] -
My point exactly!
:-)
-CW
Yo Yo,
Lol. The GOP doesn't WANT to govern, would expose the inherent contradiction of wanting a lifetime gig in government in order to kill government.
You prove my point perfectly.. :D
CW,
Clinton's numbers didn't skyrocket until Republicans actually impeached him. Be patient... and watch what happens when Boehner files his lawsuit...
Actually, Clinton's poll numbers were low 60s pre-impeachment...
Post-impeachment, they went up to the high 60s...
You simply cannot use Clinton's impeachment as a baseline to indicate what will happen with an Obama impeachment..
Clinton was popular.. His numbers were high across the board..
Obama is not popular. His numbers are in the toilet across the board...
One third of Americans think that Obama SHOULD be impeached...
Here's an example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/obamacare-plan-john-boehner_n_5618180.html
HuffPoop???
Really???
heh :D
If you can mock Breitbart, I can mock HuffPoop... :D
because that was not the law's intent.
If that was the law's intent, WHY WASN'T IT PART OF THE LAW????
That's the point ya'all seem to not want to answer...
I'll get to the other points in a bit. Pressed for time..
Michale
LewDan,
Not a fact whatsoever in #22.....
Michale
Obama is not popular. His numbers are in the toilet across the board...
This is the one point that none of you can see.. Ya'all buy into the OBAMA = MESSIAH crap and you are blinded to the FACT that the majority of Americans do not like Obama.
Do not TRUST Obama.
Does not think that Obama is a competent leader..
As to the subsidies issue, it's rather ironic..
Ya'all say, "Oh, it was just the Republicans being partisan on that one appeals court.."
Then, in the VERY NEXT BREATH, ya'all say, "Once the FULL court hears it, it will be reversed because there are more Democrats.."
WTF??
Can't you see the blatant hypocrisy of those two statements???
So, if Republicans decide an issue PURELY along partisan lines, that's bad..
But, if Democrats decide the issue, ALSO purely along partisan lines, that's OK....
I honestly and truly wish ya'all could take a step back from yourselves, ignore Democrat/Republican ideology and really see how ya'all look from the stand-point of a political agnostic..
It would be an eye opener for ya'all...
Michale
Michale,
Everything in #22 is fact. The supporting details I gave in #14. You, of course, have presented no facts!
As always, you have no argument so you fall back on simply ignoring the facts, lying, and projection. The standard conservative playbook.
Michale,
As for lacking self-awareness, Michale, that would be you. Court decisions do not have to be partisan. The law is not subjective. That is the fact you insist on ignoring.
Decisions favoring one party over another are not automatically partisan, as you also insist on falsely claiming. Democrats do not claim every decision by every conservative judge is partisan, as you constantly falsely assert. And just because a decision favors a Democratic position doesn't make it partisan.
You always ignore the specific details on which progressives base their valid complaints to make unsubstantiated wild accusations of vast conspiracies for no other reason than to justify your own blindly partisan prejudices. You constantly accuse everyone else of the behaviors you engage in with absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than your prejudices. You simply present your own unsubstantiated personal opinions as if they are self-evident truths, which you, obviously, falsely believe them to be.--That, by the way, is what being prejudiced means.
CW,
If Presidents appoint judges and justices on the basis of their willingness to ignore the law and abuse their authority in pursuit of a political agenda, that far exceeds what the constitution envisioned.
Republicans have engaged in a decades long conspiracy to break the law. They've sheltered nominees from testifying before Congress to prevent oversight. They've specifically appointed judges on the basis of their prejudices and commitment to partisan ideology over the law.
The constitution is the law. Dully enacted federal statutes are the law. Going out of ones way to get judges appointed to specifically change the law goes far beyond the discretion afforded Presidents under the constitution to form cohesive administrative teams.
We aren't seeing judicial decisions that demonstrate a liberal or conservative attitude. We're seeing decisions that are blatantly in opposition to the law in support of partisan politics. That is not what the constitution ever intended.
Past abuses do not justify current ones. The whole point of all the constitutional checks and balances is that the constitution anticipated abuses but did not condone them. You seem to think that because abuses were inevitable, due to human nature, they're just part of the system. They are not. They are aberrations that we are expected to combat, not tolerate. Our constitution is based on the concept self-rule. It doesn't attempt to protect us from corruption. It attempts to ensure us the means to protect ourselves.
Everything in #22 is fact.
That's your claim..
But it's based on nothing but political bigotry...
My argument is based on provable (AND proven) facts and common sense..
We'll know in a little over 3 months who is right and who is wrong.. :D
Michale
Let me re-iterate, since ya'all MUST have missed it..
Obama is not popular. His numbers are in the toilet across the board...
This is the one point that none of you can see.. Ya'all buy into the OBAMA = MESSIAH crap and you are blinded to the FACT that the majority of Americans do not like Obama.
Do not TRUST Obama.
Does not think that Obama is a competent leader..
As to the subsidies issue, it's rather ironic..
Ya'all say, "Oh, it was just the Republicans being partisan on that one appeals court.."
Then, in the VERY NEXT BREATH, ya'all say, "Once the FULL court hears it, it will be reversed because there are more Democrats.."
WTF??
Can't you see the blatant hypocrisy of those two statements???
So, if Republicans decide an issue PURELY along partisan lines, that's bad..
But, if Democrats decide the issue, ALSO purely along partisan lines, that's OK....
I honestly and truly wish ya'all could take a step back from yourselves, ignore Democrat/Republican ideology and really see how ya'all look from the stand-point of a political agnostic..
It would be an eye opener for ya'all...
Michale
Michale,
Your arguments are based on bullshit. And none of your claims will be proven in three months. Obama isn't up for reelection. Whether ACA authorized federal exchange subsidies isn't on the ballot either.
And I answered your faulty logic regarding so called "hypocrisy" in #28. You just only see what you don't want to see. You're terribly impressed by your own illogic, but no one else is.
Just as you are certainly no "political agnostic." Your totally partisan biases are painfully obvious to everyone but you. As is your hypocrisy.
One point that I have not seen in any commentary concerning the "state exchange/federal exchange" case is the fact that historically the term "State" means the nation as a whole or the national government. As in the "State-run media" in Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, etc. Therefore, I can see an argument that all exchanges set up by any level of government are exchanges set up by "The State". So the ruling by the 2 RW activist judges should be overturned.
Just as you are certainly no "political agnostic."
When you start slamming the Democratic Party and your Messiah as much as I slam the Republican Party, then you will lend credence to your bullshit claim..
But I don't see that happening, simply because you are enslaved by Party dogma...
You simply CAN'T say a word against your god..
PD,
One point that I have not seen in any commentary concerning the "state exchange/federal exchange" case is the fact that historically the term "State" means the nation as a whole or the national government. As in the "State-run media" in Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, etc. Therefore, I can see an argument that all exchanges set up by any level of government are exchanges set up by "The State".
Except for one point..
TrainWreckCare, on MANY ocassions within the law, differentiates between STATE and FEDERAL exchanges..
Why would it do that if it was going to treat them the same insofar as subsidies are concerned?
In the context of the law, there is "state" and there is "federal"..
The meaning of the law is clear...
But you are probably correct that the ruling will be overturned once more Democrats get to hear it..
But THAT will be as "activist" a ruling as ya'all claim the current ruling is..
But like LD with his love/hate relationship with the SCOTUS, ya'all don't mind "activist" rulings when said rulings go your way...
Once again, my agnosticism gets well-established.. :D
Michale
Your arguments are based on bullshit. And none of your claims will be proven in three months.
I'll remind you of that when the GOP owns Congress.. :D
Michale
The Typical Household, Now Worth a Third Less
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-third-less.html?_r=0
This is what happens when Democrats "lead"...
Simply more evidence that Americans are worse off under Obama and the Democrats...
Michale
Michale,
Neither of the last two two Presidential elections, won by Obama and Democrats, provided a "mandate," or "proved" anything, according to you and Republicans.--Now, when Republicans win, thanks to low voter turnout, it always "proves" that they have a mandate from the people, according to conservatives. To the rest of us its just one more example of your lying and hypocrisy. So I'm not at all concerned with what you may claim in three months.
-Now, when Republicans win, thanks to low voter turnout, it always "proves" that they have a mandate from the people, according to conservatives. To the rest of us its just one more example of your lying and hypocrisy. So I'm not at all concerned with what you may claim in three months.
You are the only one who is talking "mandates"...
I simply postulate the FACT that, if the American people wanted Democrats in office, they would vote Democrats in office..
If Democrats are so demoralized by their own so-called "leaders" that they don't even want to show up at the polls, well.. That just adds MORE evidence that I am dead on ballz accurate in what I say..
If the people want Republicans in office, that logically means that the Democrat Party has failed them..
You can spin it all you want, Spin Boy....
But the facts are the facts.. :D
And the fact is, it's looking like the American people are going to give control of Congress to the Republicans..
Neither of the last two two Presidential elections, won by Obama and Democrats, provided a "mandate,"
Funny.. That's NOT what you said when your messiah was anointed... :D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that, if the 2012 election were held today, the American people would elect Romney by a LARGER margin than Obama was actually elected...
Sucks to be Democrat... :D
Michale
Sucks to be Democrat... :D
OTOH, it sucks to be Republican too...
Just not as much.. :D
Michale