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

Where Does the Constitution Call for Black-Robed Dictators?

Resisting the Campus Speech Nazis

Don’t Count on Americans Hating Each Other Any Less Post-Midterms

Justice Department reportedly preparing to charge Wikileaks' Julian Assange

Billionaire Uses $25 Million Yacht to Bring Supplies to Fire Victims But Police Don’t Let Him Ashore

HereÂ’s Why the NRA is Silent After Cops Killed a Legally Armed Black Man for Stopping a Mass Shooting

Ohio skin cancer survivor ticketed for tinted windows despite explaining health reasons

Interesting...California wildfires map lines up with proposed high speed rail for California

Financial Times tool warns if articles quote too many men

Liberal freak article The Ohio professor who's suing for the right to violate his LGBTQ students' rights

Near the Mexican border. Citizen reporter MEXICANS WILL FIGHT BACK not letting people exit buses

Michael Avenatti Arrested for Felony Domestic Violence

Fox News backs CNN in lawsuit against Trump White House

Judiciary Committee processes Trump nominees over Democrats' objections

Google bias

DOJ OLC Memo Re Designating an Acting Attorney General (14 Nov 2018) (Matthew Whitaker)

Trump has reportedly 'retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment' after mounting midterm losses

Red Flag Gun Laws: Yet Another Government Weapon for Compliance and Control

The Toad and his minions met Monday to answer Mueller's questions:

Merkel calls for creation of ‘European army,’ backing Macron in spat with Trump

In their attempt to help ... the homeless - support liberals - stand for almost nothing hard to stand for --- they have become what they wanted - nothing.

Self-induced DISASTER: California fires the direct result of shortsighted environmentalist policies that prohibit forest management

CNN sues President Trump and White House for banning reporter Jim Acosta

As the US Spent $1.5 Million a Day to “Fight” Afghan Heroin Production, Heroin Output Quadrupled

Black security guard killed by police while he was stopping a bar shooting

Professor sues university for being ‘punished’ after calling female transgender student ‘sir’

They Hacked Their School District When They Were 12. The Adults Are Still Trying to Catch Up.

UN Demands Ban on Trump-style “Nationalist Populism”

12 targets as House Democrats prepare to investigate

MICHELLE O: LIKE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, DUDE, YOU KNOW?

Jerry Brown: Climate-Change Deniers 'Definitely Contributing' to the 'New Abnormal' of Wildfires

Fastest growing religion is ‘none’

Giving Food to the Homeless Shouldn’t Be a Crime

Michelle Obama: ‘I stopped even trying to smile’ during Trump’s inauguration

114 warrants served across Maryland since ‘red flag’ law went into effect in October ('Take the guns first, go through due process second' )

The Toad Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

What is the textbook definition of a democrat

Putin's Favorite Congressman Is A Loser

DOJ Charges Hotel with Discrimination for not Hiring Immigrant in Fraud-Infested Asylum Program

Matthew Whitaker is a crackpot

Larry King: "CNN Stopped Doing News A Long Time Ago"

THE MOST EVIL HUMAN ON EARTH!

AP NewsBreak: Michelle Obama rips Trump in new book

CNN's Jim Acosta Was Rude, but He Did Not Assault a White House Intern

Judge Nap: Whitaker Not 'Legally Qualified' to Be Acting Attorney General

Rick Scott Sues Broward County and Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections

Ocasio-Cortez: “Puzzling” That Anyone Would Ask How I’ll Pay for Agenda

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized After Fracturing Three Ribs

D.C. Bureaucrats Are Trying to Make Parents Get a License to Let Children Play Together

American Citizen Detained by Trump Admin Without Charge for More than a Year Finally Set Free


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: 221
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