How Big??? #HalBig – Halbig Court Decision On ObamaCare

Update II: Well that was quick. Two hours after the Halbig decision the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on ObamaCare. As predicted below, the Fourth Circuit upheld ObamaCare’s subsidy scheme as twisted into existence by Obama. This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review.

More importantly, the plaintiffs that lost in the Fourth Circuit now can immediately appeal to the Supreme Court and not bother with an appeal to the full panel of the Fourth Circuit.

———————————————————————————————————-

Update: We already have a question in the comments about why Josh Earnest is saying that the subsidies will continue to flow.

Earnest is joshing. Presidents better obey the courts. If the ruling is stayed – by the courts – pending appeal then there is no problem. But what this is really about is Obama trying to thug the Supreme Court by warning them that he might disregard a ruling by them he does not like. This is Obama trying to intimidate the high court with the threat of a constitutional crisis.

———————————————————————————————————-

We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision.

It might be an update kind of day but we’ll start with the basic news on Halbig.

If you thought the worldwide path of destruction by Obama – a soft invasion on the American southern border, Russian adventurism and Russian allies destroying passenger aircraft as Obama whimpers, Obama and face-lift Kerry hatin’ on Israel, Midas-in-reverse Obama economics, Obama still voting “present” by ceaseless fundraisers-vacations-golf outings with the boys – made the scam called ObamaCare any less relevant — read it and weep tears of laughter:

President Obama’s healthcare law was dealt a new blow Tuesday as a U.S. appeals court ruled that due to a wording glitch in the Affordable Care Act, some low- and middle-income residents are not entitled to receive government assistance to subsidize their insurance.

In a 2-1 vote, a panel of judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia judges rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the problem was triggered by imprecise language in the complex law and that Congress had always intended to offer the subsidies nationwide to low-and middle-income people who bought insurance through one of the state or federal health exchanges created under the law.

But as written, the law states that subsidies should be paid to those who purchase insurance through an “exchange established by the state.”

That would seem to leave out the 36 states in which the exchanges are operated by the federal government.

The appeals court wrote in its decision:

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” [snip]

If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for non-subsidized people who would remain in those plans, who are apt as a group to be in worse health than all original enrollees.

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov.

Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.

As we wrote in an update to our earlier Halbig article, Obama’s law professor thought the ObamaCare scam was likely to lose today:

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.” [snip]

The problem for the IRS, though, is that the subsidies language is not ambiguous. Even Tribe acknowledged that the language is clear, according to the Fiscal Times.

“Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration ‘assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position’ — though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons,” the Fiscal Times writes.

The ObamaCare law was and is a mess. The ObamaCare law was not read by those that passed it. They voted for the ObamaCare scam more as Obama idolatry than good policy. Now, the illiterate chickens are coming home to roost. The law was badly written and Obama tried to write new law using agencies and departments of the federal government. But in our system of government only the legislature, the Congress, can write laws.

Because we are a nation of laws and the words in our laws matter this happened:

Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to health law

A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

As Barack Obama flits out to his latest fundraising tour week ObamaCare comes back and slaps him in the face.

The problem is the law as written and even as not implemented by Obama and even as will eventually have to be implemented. That’s why the appeals court acted with such courage. GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

The problem is Obama. GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

Share

159 thoughts on “How Big??? #HalBig – Halbig Court Decision On ObamaCare

  1. Big Media articles on the Halbig decision are focused on attempts to mock the plaintiffs’ legal position and to bolster the Obama version of reality. What the Big Media articles miss is that the Congress writes and passes laws – not the president. The president is supposed to execute the laws passed by Congress which is what most presidents do or try to do. Obama though, thinks he is a precious unicorn who can write laws and fly in the air making rainbows.

    Beware of Big Media articles on Halbig!

  2. Admin…why is press spokesperson Josh saying the subsidies will continue…can they defy the court?

    Is this all about allowing the subsidies to continue while on appeal to other courts?

    How does that work?

  3. Admin:

    You predicted this decision accurately.

    The loss of subsidies is one thing.

    Sticker shock coming prior to the November mid term is another.

    When they were promising a reduction in health care costs.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/21/judge-tosses-senator-obamacare-lawsuit/?intcmp=latestnews

    Also, Dr Ben Carson is right where you are:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/21/judge-tosses-senator-obamacare-lawsuit/?intcmp=latestnews

    Where’s Zeke?

    On the lamb, with his corrupt brother Rahmadon?

  4. why is press spokesperson Josh saying the subsidies will continue…can they defy the court?
    ————
    Perhaps they mean, pending appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Assuming that the snaling left does not put water between John Roberts’ legs–again,

    And the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals decision

    And Messiah Obama does, what I personally hope he does, because I wish him only the best

    And defies the racist majority on the Court

    Then Professor Jacobson, by his own self imposed test, would favor impeachment.

    Impeachment would make everyone happy

    Impeachment would make me happy too . . .

    Just as long as Big Media was an indicted co-conspirator.

  5. Update: We already have a question in the comments about why Josh Earnest is saying that the subsidies will continue to flow.

    Earnest is joshing. Presidents better obey the courts. If the ruling is stayed – by the courts – pending appeal then there is no problem. But what this is really about is Obama trying to thug the Supreme Court by warning them that he might disregard a ruling by them he does not like. This is Obama trying to intimidate the high court with the threat of a constitutional crisis.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

  6. Adler:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/22/breaking-d-c-circuit-strikes-down-tax-credits-in-federal-exchanges/

    This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released its much awaited opinion in Halbig v. Burwell.  In a 2-1 opinion, the Court held that the Internal Revenue Service regulation authorizing tax credits in federal exchanges was invalid.  Judge Griffith, writing for the court, concluded, “the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State.”  In other words, the court reaffirmed the principle that the law is what Congress enacts — the text of the statute itself — and not the unexpressed intentions or hopes of legislators or a bill’s proponents.  Judge Randolph joined Judge Griffith’s opinion and wrote a concurrence.  Judge Edwards dissented.  The opinions are available here.

    Here is the introduction to Judge Griffith’s opinion:

    Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the Act), makes tax credits available as a form of subsidy to individuals who purchase health insurance through marketplaces—known as “American
    Health Benefit Exchanges,” or “Exchanges” for short—that are “established by the State under section 1311” of the Act. 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i). On its face, this provision authorizes tax credits for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. See 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d). But the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted section 36B broadly to authorize the subsidy also for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by the federal government under
    section 1321 of the Act. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1) (hereinafter “IRS Rule”).

    Appellants are a group of individuals and employers residing in states that did not establish Exchanges. For reasons we explain more fully below, the IRS’s interpretation of section 36B makes them subject to certain penalties under the ACA that they would rather not face. Believing that the IRS’s interpretation is inconsistent with section 36B, appellants challenge the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that it is not “in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

    On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court rejected that challenge, granting the government’s motion and denying appellants’. See Halbig v. Sebelius, No.
    13 Civ. 623 (PLF), 2014 WL 129023 (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2014). After resolving several threshold issues related to its jurisdiction, the district court held that the ACA’s text,
    structure, purpose, and legislative history make “clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges.” Id. at *18. Furthermore, the court held that even if the ACA were ambiguous, the IRS’s regulation would represent a permissible construction entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

    Appellants timely appealed the district court’s orders, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the orders is de novo, and “[o]n an independent review of the record, we will uphold an agency action unless we find it to be ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808, 814 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance
    purchased on Exchanges “established by the State,” we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation
    .

    Although this decision is faithful to the text of the PPACA – that is, faithful to the text Congress actually enacted, as opposed to the health care reform some wanted or now wish they had gotten — it will provoke howls of outrage from ACA supporters.  (Let the disdain campaign begin.)

    What comes next? The Administration will have to decide whether to seek en banc review of this decision or file a petition for certiorari. If I had to guess, I would say the former is more likely.  Supreme Court review will likely wait until there are more decisions on this question.  A decision remains pending in King v. Sebelius before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and there are two pending cases in district courts.

    [emphasis added]

  7. Admin: I believe I watched all 26 debates. It was so obvious to any objective observer what Obama would be like as president–his declaration that he was not a coo, but a ceo, who would assume the position of a brooding omnipresence in the sky, and hover over the processes of government and give spiritual guidance but never getting his hands dirty, his claim that the differences between cultures, governments etc. were not based on historical factors and group phobias rather than transcendental leadership of the kind which only he could deliver; and his track record of running away from the tough decisions by voting present, etc. He seems secretive now to those who were not paying attention. But to those of us that were, he was an open book, and for all the worship and awe accorded to him by those rent seeking parasites also known as big media, who are pretending that there is no credibility gap for him and for them, they too are exposed. Truth to tell they are as interesting to me as a block toilet is to a plummer. But I cannot afford to deny the svengali affect they have on the public mind, to pervert, to distract, and to lie through their teeth.

  8. I think courts are getting nervous with the degree of lawlessness this administration is putting out there. Completely rewriting statutory law that is very specific, has reams of hearing minutes that the Congress specifically intended to use the state exchange language as a cudgel to bully states into funding state exchanges and expand Medicaid on state taxpayers dime, is a precedent that Republicans can use with equal ferocity in a increasingly likely Republican administration which will follow this one. “What goes around comes around” is very likely and doing this for a very unpopular president who is on the downhill slide to oblivion may not be worth it anymore. This is not 2009-2010 when he could do no wrong. He obviously can do almost everything wrong and is threatening to take them with him. The full DC appeals court could reverse, agree or refuse to even hear it. The same goes for the Supreme Court. But opponents of this unholy mess now have a toehold to fight it and no it is not settled law.

  9. the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State.” In other words, the court reaffirmed the principle that the law is what Congress enacts — the text of the statute itself
    ————
    This is where you get into a difference in judicial philosophies. The conservative members of the Supreme Court will be inclined to uphold this decision, which serves to implement the plain meaning of the statute, and to respect the primacy of congress when it comes to the legislative function. There is, however, a contrary view, referred to as the “living constitution” doctrine, which had its hey day during the Warren Court era, which is untethered from the express language, and in the words of that maxim of equity, to do justice and that not by halves. Under that iteration, litigants or the executive is free to make an end run around congress and the Constitution and function as a bevy of Platonic Guardians handed down their notions of justice. My favorite Justice, who is the bane of the left, calls this view the death of democracy, because it deals the American People and their foundational document and there duly elected representatives out of the entire equation. Four justices, the liberal ones, are predisposed to this view, and were selected by the democrats because of it. Their inclination would be to offer some fix that saves the ACA, and it is interesting that the draftsmen dared them to do this, because if memory serves, there is no savings clause which says if any provision of this act shall be declared unconstitutional, the rest of the act survives. As a practical matter, however, the loss of this case will disable the act severely, if as I say, Roberts does not blow it. My favorite Justice wore his judicial robes and the very hat worn by Saint Thomas Moore to the inauguration of the fraud in 2008, which was his great big fuck you to the Messiah, which did not go unnoticed by the left wing zealots who were otherwise reveling in their glory.

  10. Admin, thank you for your reply and explanation for how this all works and what to expect next in the official realm…or ‘reality’…as opposed to what O ‘wills’ on a whim…

    ********************************

    Mormaer

    July 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    I think courts are getting nervous with the degree of lawlessness this administration is putting out there. Completely rewriting statutory law that is very specific, has reams of hearing minutes that the Congress specifically intended to use the state exchange language as a cudgel to bully states into funding state exchanges and expand Medicaid on state taxpayers dime,

    ****************************************

    Mormaer…as you often do, I think you have hit upon the bottom line…O seems to be ‘in your face’ with everyone and looking to make fools out of our whole government and our system of checks and balances…

  11. The maxim referred to above reads: equity delights to do justice and that not by halves. It is the judicial corollary to Obama’s open mic comment I am president I can do anything I want, because it says, in effect, I am a supreme court justice, ergo my colleagues and I can do whatever we want, and we are not final because we are infallible, but infallible because we are final, even if we fail.

  12. Mormaer
    July 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm
    I think courts are getting nervous with the degree of lawlessness this administration is putting out there. Completely rewriting statutory law that is very specific, has reams of hearing minutes that the Congress specifically intended to use the state exchange language as a cudgel to bully states into funding state exchanges and expand Medicaid on state taxpayers dime,
    ****************************************
    At the risk of repeating myself, your insights and instincts are superb.

    As with anything else (except big media) there is a tipping point where the judge begins asking himself I want to be supportive if I can, I want to find some way to avoid a constitutional problem, which exposes my own weakness which is I have neither the power of the sword or the purse, and what happens if the executive defies what I say. This concern was on the minds of the Warren Court when they handed down the Brown vs. Board of Education case in 1954–they were not sure how fast and to what degree their holding would be implemented, so they used the term of art “with all deliberate speed”, meaning as quickly or as slowly as practicable. But even as a judge, mindful of these infirmities, you watch the Constitution ripped asunder by this sociopath, and there must always come a point where you look yourself in the mirror and ask, why am I here? Not so big media, but every other institution is subject to a tipping point, simply because we hope to be consistent, correct, and we know the world may not be watching, but sure as the earth turns, Professor Johnathan Turley is watching what we do, and he is an honest man who knows more about the customs, usages and history than his evil counterpart Jeffrey Tubesteak and will tell the world where we erred.

  13. I do not think I have ever been more happy than to see another honest man of the left, Glenn Greenwald, hand Jeffrey Tubesteak his nutsack and squeeze. This was the time when Tubesteak took a chapter out of the David Gregory playbook, got on his high horse and accused Snowden and by implication Greenwald himself of betraying the nation for revealing the nature and extent of government spying. If you have not seen what happens when these faux journalists try to force Greenwald into the corner, he sends a lightening fast succession of verbal jabs in their face and then the right cross which can only mean one thing, fade to black and a commercial break. Tubesteak and his CNN cronies were picking themselves up off the mat after that one, and vowing to never let Glenn back in their studio. Those types of smackdowns of big media happen rarely if ever. The last one I remember was a generation ago when Admiral Rickover called the a similar crop of “journalists” a bunch of soap and deodorant salesmen and abruptly terminated the interview.

  14. “Contrary to the D.C. Circuit decision today, the 4th Circuit upholds the Obamacare federal exchange subsidy. Maybe the Obama admin knew about the opinion, which would explain why it was so confident subsidies would flow pending court cases.

    This all but guarantees the Supreme Court will take the case since there is a split in the Circuits.”

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/whipsaw-4th-circuit-upholds-obamacare-federal-exchange-subsidy-after-d-c-circuit-rejects/
    *****
    The WH stooges could be smug, they knew the fix was in with the 4th Circuit.

  15. MoonOnPluto must be laughing:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/turkeys-erdogan-i-no-longer-talk-to-obama/

    Turkey’s Erdogan: ‘I no longer talk to Obama
    Turkish PM admits to growing strain between Ankara and Washington over conflicts in Syria, Gaza

    ISTANBUL — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he has stopped talking to US President Barack Obama on the phone, amid growing strains between Ankara and Washington over Syria and the Gaza conflict.

    Turkey, a fierce opponent of Syrian President Bashar Assad and an open supporter of armed rebel fighters, felt betrayed when the United States backed away from military action against Damascus in September.

    “In the past, I was calling him (Obama) directly. Because I can’t get the expected results on Syria, our foreign ministers are now talking to each other,” Erdogan said in a live interview on pro-government ATV channel late Monday.

    “And I have talked to (US Vice President Joe) Biden. He calls me and I call him.

    “I expect justice in this process. I couldn’t imagine something like this from those who are championing justice,” Erdogan added without elaborating, in an apparent jibe at Washington.

    The last phone conversation between the two leaders took place on February 20 after which the White House released a statement accusing Erdogan of misrepresenting the content of the conversation.

    Two liars not talking to each other. Loser Erdogan would rather talk to drunk Joe Biden – tells you all you need to know about Obama.

  16. For big media, their pious claim that like Zola, they are in the business of speaking truth to power, only applies when there is a Republican in the White House. When there is a democrat, they are akin to the castrades of the medieval Vatican boys choir. Sharyl Attkission has an article where Lisa Myers makes the startling admission that big media was tougher on Bush than they are on Obama. If that his all she is willing to say about the demise of an institution whose role is critical to effective democracy, then she would have been better off just keeping her mouth shut. We do not need an investigative journalist to tell us only that, but we do wait with great expectations for the rest of the story which we hope will emerge from Sharyl’s book about big media in October. At that point, a more penetrating indictment of the most corrupt institution in our society can begin in earnest, with a solid factual foundation. Let us hope it goes far enough to show the average American just how badly they are being duped. The how and why of it.

  17. Update II: Well that was quick. Two hours after the Halbig decision the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on ObamaCare. As predicted below, the Fourth Circuit upheld ObamaCare’s subsidy scheme as twisted into existence by Obama. This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review.

    More importantly, the plaintiffs that lost in the Fourth Circuit now can immediately appeal to the Supreme Court and not bother with an appeal to the full panel of the Fourth Circuit.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

  18. Wow, this Halbig development is really big. Before getting into it, I had this to say on the last thread:

    *************
    wbboei July 22, 2014 at 10:26 am

    You illustrate your idea of galloping government abuse using the NAACP, which is an NGO operating in the “free” market. The NAACP is way out of the ballpark. I thought you would come back at me with the Department of Justice!

    Anyway, as I said, we definitely agree that the IRS and DOJ are examples of how government is currently going awry. But the solution is not to abolish the IRS and DOJ nor to reduce their powers or privatize them, but to replace the president and his whole crew.

    To get back to the statement that started our little debate, “letting free markets create jobs” is still bullshit.

    First of all, we’ve got to realize what the ornery Amurikan understands by “free” market or “free” anything else for that matter. This “free” drivel is built into our national culture as if we all understood what it meant: It means no constraints or fetters of any kind, no rules, no boundaries or limits. As soon as there are rules to be obeyed, we’re not free any more. I think you can agree that that is bullshit, but that’s the way the man in the street thinks. So the Republican “free market” claptrap gets them votes from ornery people.

    In a free market in that very American sense of the concept ‘freedom’, it’s the law of the jungle where only the big and strong win out — it’s the ones who are “too big to fail” that make the rules, but they are unwritten rules and therefore invisible, and physically understandable, so no one rankles. They just shut up. America today is ruled by big corporations and big media because nobody wants any rules. And big corporations aren’t creating any jobs. To the contrary, they are shipping them overseas. And big media pumps whatever opium the big corporations want into the flaccid brains of the huddling masses that are still yearning to be “free” a hundred years after their ancestors read those words on the Statue of Liberty.

    Can we agree here?

    Then, in that phrase, you have “letting” free markets create jobs. This means Hands Off or Laisser Faire, just like in the good ol’ days of the Gilded Age of robber barons. “Letting” is just icing on the cake: You make something free by “letting” it do what it wants. The rich “let” their Dobermans loose on you if they think you’re asking for a handout, you “let” your kids eat their way to diabetes, “let” them play electronic war games and watch violent movies, then “let” them buy guns and play the games for real on the streets. “Letting free markets create jobs” is overkill. I think we can agree on that too.

    So, I’m sorry to say it about Sarah Palin, whom I like a lot actually, but she hasn’t put much thought into what a truly free market actually is and has swallowed a large shovelful of Republican bullshit.

  19. Plato famously called democracy the worst form of government. That was because it was susceptible to manipulation by demagogues, men like messiah Obama, who appealed to the base instincts of the mob–greed and fear. In Plato’s time, there was no professional press corps whose proper role is to protect the public against these demogogues by unmasking them, and driving them from the public square. Far from doing anything like that, our beloved bid media, have taken the opposite tack by becoming not the critic of the demagogue and the truth teller, but his enabler and propagandists. In sum, have abdicated their role as the defender of the people for the rosier lights of wealth, fame and celebrity. That is why we should stop listening to them, but must also be mindful of their perverse influence on the majority of the public who are creatures of habit, and do not understand the game.

  20. Admin: if this adverse decision had come from the ninth circuit, it would be wrong but understandable. But the fourth circuit, which sits in Richmond Virginia, is typically a conservative court. This panel must be comprised of Obama appointees. And, their decision reflects the living constitution philosophy which I referred to above, and the assumption that they can discern what Congress “must have intended” despite what they actually said, and despite the fact that state control was insisted upon by the former senator from Nebraska and, despite the fact that the then Speaker of the House told us she did not know what was in the ACA and it would have to be passed before we could know.

  21. I agree with you that it is a good thing that this case can now be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, rather than languishing for months or years with the full panel, as will likely happen with the DC CCA decision. In that sense, for the defenders of the ACA, this is a Pyrrhic victory.

  22. eswezey
    July 22, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    I have already said I do not support crony capitalism, I do not want to abolish the agencies, but to make them accountable, I do not support privatization of functions best performed by government, and I believe that small businesses create jobs, and over regulation stifles it. In those areas where the government acts, there must be a clear nexus between government action and the public good. The incestuous relationships which exist between corporate lobbyist, members of Congress and their staffs are inherently suspect, and should be subject to intense scrutiny and the test for any new legislation which restricts freedom should be whether it serves the public good, rather than mercenary interests of an invisible oligarchy.

    I am unclear what else you want from me, in terms of stipulations.

  23. “This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review. ”
    ****
    Does a split between panels count or does there have to be a split between en banc circuits?

  24. admin, or someone else who understands this:

    Using your links, I’ve tried to find the exact complaint here — that is, I don’t know why any court would say that Halbig and/or Burwell have standing to act in court. Is someone complaining because they don’t want subsidies? That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If that were the case and I were the judge, I would dismiss the plaintiff for “no case to argue.”

    I get the problem about the faulty language, it’s just the basic complaint that I can’t understand.

  25. wbboei July 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    If you’re unclear about what I want, I think it’s because we don’t have anything to argue about. We’re pretty much agreed.

    Just one small point. When you say:

    “I believe that small businesses create jobs, and over regulation stifles it”

    I also believe small businesses create jobs, but they can only do so in a truly free market, with free competition, and this “freedom” means regulation. I really don’t think small businesses are staggering under “over-regulation.” Again, Romney: “The markets need regulation.”

    I could give a detailed example of how small pharmaceutical companies in France operate in a market that is largely dominated by Sanofi-Aventis and foreign (American and German) drug companies too. They can only keep their heads above water because there are rules and there is a Competition Authority to enforce them. If there were no Competition Authority, the small operators would be squeezed out of the market in a New York minute.

    With these small operators, who can make money with generic drugs after the big operator has amortized its research, the prices of drugs come down – way down. For example, the psychiatric medicine I’ve been taking for ten years, originally developed by Sanofi, now has a generic formula produced by three companies and the price has come down 80%.

    Sanofi was sued this year before the Competition Authority for spreading false rumors about a generic drug that it was selling for hundreds of millions of Euros a year. The Authority came down pretty hard on Sanofi, they were sanctioned for several hundred million Euros.

    The Competition Authority is an independent, specialized branch of the judiciary. It is not under government control, although its decisions can be appealed in regular courts. But, it’s regulation, and it’s regulation that is needed.

    I don’t believe in “over-regulation.”

  26. SHV
    July 22, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    “This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review. ”
    ****
    Does a split between panels count or does there have to be a split between en banc circuits?
    ———————-

    From what I can tell, it is up to each circuit do decide whether the decision by its panel is final, or should be reviewed by the full court in banc. The rules for this differ by circuit. En banc review is disfavored, except in complex cases or cases involving important public issues. It takes a majority of active circuit judges to rehear the panel decision in banc. Failing to do so, the decision is deemed final and ripe for appeal to the Supreme Court.

  27. SHV, the answer to your question is one of the reasons why we think the Fourth Circuit decision is better for ObamaCare opponents in one very big regard.

    Right now there is a split in the circuits. No it does not have to be en banc decisions that trigger a “split”. The split in circuit courts has happened. What Obama will do to try to end this split is to appeal to the entire D.C. Circuit in order end the split by scoring a win with the full panel. We believe as almost everyone else that Obama will prevail in the full D.C. court because Obama packed that court.

    Now the interesting part which makes the Fourth Circuit decision so good for ObamaCare opponents:

    First, the opinion sucks. It is not very well thought out. Second, in various parts the judges that ruled for ObamaCare agree that the case is a “close call”. Third and more important of all — the Fourth Circuit decision against the plaintiffs gives the plaintiffs the opportunity to immediately appeal to the Supreme Court while the split in circuits still exists. This third reason is something almost no one has picked up on yet. They’ll catch up to our analysis in a day or two or maybe when the lawyers for plaintiffs “surprise” everyone (except those at Big Pink) and go directly to the Supreme Court.

  28. “The markets need regulation.”
    —————–
    This gets down to the definition of regulation. The first element of proper regulation is the proper marking of boundaries for economic behavior. It must not be allowed to infringe on other freedoms or the welfare of society as a whole. The second element of proper regulation is to modify certain conduct which occurs within those boundaries, but is predatory or inimical to competition. The final element of proper regulation is to allow economic entities to function freely within those parameters, and not smother them with micro management, harrassment or political agendas, which add cost to the equation and distort beneficial outcomes for society.

  29. Jeswezey, all the answers to your questions are here: http://www.hillaryis44.org/2014/07/09/obamacare-halbig-court-decision/

    In that article we linked to one on CNBC which provides the argument by plaintiffs:

    In a nutshell, plaintiffs in the case Halbig v. Sebelius claim those often-valuable subsidies are illegal because the Affordable Care Act only authorized such tax credits for people who bought insurance through one of the exchanges originally set up by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not the federal exchange. Nearly 90 percent of the people who enrolled in plans via the federal exchange qualified for those subsides because they had low or moderate incomes.

    Take away those subsidies and many, if not most, of the enrollees on HealthCare.gov might not buy insurance next year because they will find it unaffordable at the full premium price. That, in turn, could create a much-feared “death spiral,” where insurance pools have too many sick enrollees and not enough young healthy ones, and premium rates skyrocket. [snip]

    And if those subsidies are not available to individuals in the states served by HealthCare.gov, it would also mean that businesses in those states could not be mandated starting next year to offer affordable health insurance to their workers or pay a fine. That’s because the so-called employer mandate is linked to the availability of those subsidies for workers who opt to buy individual insurance.

    We bolded the text which details the issue in controversy.

  30. Admin:

    In that case, the plaintiff will appeal the fourth circuit decision to the Supreme Court while there is still a conflict between circuits, meaning before the forces of darkness can cure that conflict through a hearing en banc where as you point out the packed court will give the Administration what they want. The resulting scenario could well be a conflict between circuits when the case is filed which is one of the statutory bases for an appeal to the Supreme Court, but that conflict could be deemed cured once the case is heard before the court. Under these circumstances, I would hope that when the Supreme Court accepts the appeal, they stay further proceedings on the matter by the DC Circuit, even though I seriously doubt that a failure to do so would negate jurisdiction. Do you know the answer to that question. I have not researched it myself. If not, then it is hypothetically possible that both circuits hear the cases in banc, and both would reverse the opinions of their panels. This assumes the at majority of judges on the fourth circuit are not water boys for Obama, even if their panel turned out to be.

  31. Erdogan, a rabid anti-Semite was Obama’s most trusted foreign leader per Obama own words. Turkey, once a place of moderation and tolerance, has become a major supporter of Hamas and Iran. Why Turkey remains a member of NATO is outrageous.

  32. Wbboei, for the high court to grant cert they just need 4 votes. Recall the results of the ObamaCare lawsuit? Anthony Kennedy was prepared, demanding actually, to gut the entire law. Three other Justices were right there with Kennedy. We don’t think getting 4 votes to grant cert will be much of a problem. What we will be watching for is when the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs file for cert (how quickly and how much in advance of the government in the D.C. Circuit) if that is the strategy they choose.

    More interesting (we might write about this in another article because it is very interesting) is the opinions issued today. The Fourth Circuit opinion is “lacking” real heft. The D.C. opinion is smartly thought out and comprehensive which might explain why it took so long to issue. The D.C. opinion even cited to the recent exemption from ObamaCare for U.S. territories. As we said, comprehensive.

  33. admin
    July 22, 2014 at 3:42 pm
    —————
    Yes. Your analysis was impressive. The last question I asked was a stupid one. The fourth circuit would not consider the panel decision en banc unless plaintiff/appellants requested it, whereas now, their categorical imperative is to move to an immediate appeal, forcing Obama to defend a weak decision by the Fourth Circuit panel. The question I raised about a reconsideration en banc– sua sponte (on their own motion) by the fourth circuit would not arise, and a reversal by the Obama packed DC Circuit of a well reasoned decision by its panel will have no legal affect. Whatever political effect it might have would be short lived.

  34. If the DC circuit en banc falls on their sword, the political effect can be muted by showing how Obama packed that circuit court, which will fuel even greater ire by the American People who hate this fucking ACA travesty. The political indictment of that circuit court, reversing a panel decision would play hell at a time when premiums are going up as much as 25% under the ACA, and deductibles are also rising, and Obama minions are telling the country that everything is coming up roses.

  35. Oh My!!!! 😯

    In a stunning security breach, the giant American flags at the top of both sides of the Brooklyn Bridge were replaced by white-painted flags overnight, cops said Tuesday.

    Emergency Services cops lowered the two rogue flags — which are the traditional symbol for surrender — and folded them into tight triangles using traditional procedures around 11 a.m.

    The cops also packed up large aluminum cooking pans, which the vandals used to cover the bridge’s lights in order to pull off the stunt, a law enforcement source said.

    http://nypost.com/2014/07/22/white-flags-flying-from-brooklyn-bridge-cops-probe-breach/

  36. admin
    July 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    —-
    You are sure some kind of professional smarty pants, Admin. I wish I knew your real background.

    All the Pink legal eagles and I just try to follow the details.

  37. foxy 5:05
    ————
    There was much ado about whether Mayor Warren Wilhelm, Jr & family should have planned 10 days in Italy visiting his “roots”. I heard it was delayed by the unfortunate death of a cigarette saleman as NYPD attempted to arrest him. Wifey said not to worry: Smart Phones will keep them intouch. I assume they’ve departed & Doubt a couple of white flags will send them back home. 🙂

    But that is quite a feat.

  38. We might be witnessing another major upset in Georgia tonight. With 16.6% of the vote in:

    Kingston 50.2
    Purdue 49.8

    Purdue might beat Kingston.

  39. Shadowfax, Kingston is the Republican establishment favorite because he is a go along get along type RINO. Purdue might be the same but he is not as loved as Kingston. In either case this would be another throw the bum out moment.

  40. I am not sure the Republican Party will hold this seat. The reason I say that is because thanks to her father, Nunn has greater name recollection, particularly with middle age voters, and of course seniors. You would need to run a dirty campaign to beat her, and tying her to the tin can of Obamacare is the place to start. I believe that will resonate as more bad news about that misbegotten act, hits the transom, and voters see their premiums take off like a Roman candle. As I understand it, Perdue has tea party support. But as a businessman, I wonder if he will adhere to that path or wander as far afield as Corker, who came to congress as a businessman to, but has proven to be nothing more than a money whore.

    Perdue Defeats Kingston in Georgia Senate Runoff

    ATLANTA — Jul 22, 2014, 11:33 PM ET

    Associated Press

    Businessman David Perdue has defeated longtime Rep. Jack Kingston in the Republican runoff for Georgia’s U.S. Senate nomination, setting up a matchup against Democratic nominee Michelle Nunn that will help determine which party controls the Senate for the final years of the Obama administration.

    Tuesday night’s primary runoff win validates Perdue’s campaign as an outsider. The former CEO of Reebok, Dollar General and the failed textile firm Pillowtex, Perdue offered his private sector record and tremendous wealth as proof that he can help solve the nation’s ills in a Congress largely devoid of experience business titans. He spent more than $3 million of his own money blasting Kingston and other primary rivals as career politicians, including one ad depicting his rivals as crying babies.

    “I’ve never run for anything in my life. I’m humbled,” Perdue told supporters gathered at a hotel in the Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta.

    With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Perdue led Kingston by about 8,000 votes — enough for 50.9 percent of the vote. Perdue also led Kingston in the initial May primary, but both men fell well shy of the majority necessary to win without a runoff.

    Perdue immediately shifted to general election mode, praising Kingston and calling for party unity in the race against Nunn and Libertarian Amanda Swafford. Republicans need six more seats to regain a Senate majority for the final two years of President Barack Obama’s tenure, and the GOP cannot afford to lose retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ seat.

    “I respect Michelle Nunn. I respect her family,” Perdue said, a nod to her father, former Sen. Sam Nunn. But, Perdue added, “I will prosecute the failed record of the last six years of Barack Obama.”

    Across town on the Georgia Tech campus, Kingston thanked his supporters and let them know he’ll be working for a Perdue win in November. “We will keep Georgia in the Republican column,” he said.

    As he did in May, Kingston ran up huge margins across southeast Georgia, where he’s represented Georgia’s 1st Congressional District since 1993. In his home Chatham County, he won 86 percent, with about 12,500 more votes than Perdue. But Perdue erased Kingston’s home base advantage by running more consistently around the rest of the state, particularly in the heavily populated Atlanta and its suburbs. Perdue won Fulton County and all the surrounding counties that make up the metropolitan area.

    With the win, Perdue overcame a Kingston coalition that spanned the internal GOP struggle between tea party conservatives and traditional GOP powers. Kingston ran with the endorsement and more than $2.3 million in advertising support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a titan of the Washington establishment. But he also garnered backing from tea party leaders and Karen Handel, the tea party favorite who finished third in the May primary.

    Kingston, 59, ran as an 11-term congressman in a year when voters have expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the nation’s direction, arguing that his record proves his conservative credentials. He pitched his range of endorsements as proof of his appeal across ideological barriers.

    Yet the returns suggest showed that wasn’t enough to trump a political reality: Americans typically love their congressman but loathe Congress as a whole.

    National Democrats view Nunn as one of their best opportunities to pick up a GOP-held seat. She’s raised more than $9 million and reported $2.3 million left to spend earlier this month. Perdue reported less than $800,000, but his personal wealth ensures that his campaign doesn’t have to worry about money.

    Perdue’s win could require a strategic shift for the new Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent, since they now can’t simply run against the sitting Congress and its discord.

    Nunn, an Atlanta nonprofit executive, uses her father, an old-guard Southern Democrat who served four terms, as an example of what kind of senator she’d be. She also eagerly highlights her tenure as executive of Republican former President George H.W. Bush’s foundation.

    Both candidates should have plenty of money. Nunn has raised more than $9 million and reported earlier this month than she had at least $2.3 million left to spend. Perdue reported less than $800,000, but he has enough personal wealth to finance his own campaign.

    Outside groups have already spent more than $8 million on the race, and that continued Tuesday night. A Super PAC, Ending Spending Action Fund, ran an ad attacking Nunn as a supporter of Obama’s health care law.

    The fund is backed by the Ricketts family, whose patriarch, Joe Ricketts, founded TD Ameritrade and now owns the Chicago Cubs baseball team.

  41. You can see why the Republican establishment would support Kingston. He is a charter member of the political class, and never did an honest days work in his life. His only saving grace is he is not from Chicago.

  42. She also eagerly highlights her tenure as executive of Republican former President George H.W. Bush’s foundation
    —————–
    I am not sure that is an asset. Did she get this through her own efforts or her father’s connections? I don’t think we even need to ask, do we? Just another member of the political class who are destroying this nation.

  43. The other thing to consider is the Atlanta media including the leftist Atlanta Journal Constitution will go all out for Nunn. Her opponent needs to paint her as an establishment candidate, as evidenced by her family name and connections, and by her unequivocal support for Obamacare. The slogan should read when you are in a hole, stop digging.

  44. A good summary (we provide excerpts) here:

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-22/obamacare-takes-a-body-blow

    When you read through the ruling, it’s easy to see the many ways in which the law’s architects brought this on themselves. The law was highly complex, badly drafted and highly controversial. When a Republican won a special election for the Senate in Massachusetts (!), the Democrats had to push it through on a straight party-line vote with some adroit parliamentary maneuvering — which gave them a health-care law, but one that was badly put together and couldn’t be substantially amended. The gaping holes were patched with administrative fixes, like an Internal Revenue Service ruling that held federally established exchanges to be equivalent to an exchange established by the state. But the vast scale of the law meant that the administrative gymnastics that held it together might not be sustainable.

    For example, the core of the government’s case is that Congress cannot have meant to leave federal exchanges without subsidies, because without the subsidies, the insurance markets in states with federal exchanges would inevitably enter into a death spiral. And obviously Congress wouldn’t do that.

    The problem, as the justices point out in their brief, is that the government has done just that. Federal territories are subject to the mandates, but they don’t get subsidies. So clearly the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services think that, at least in some cases, Congress would and did enact exactly the system — guaranteed issue, community rating, but no subsidies — that the government lawyers are claiming they would never consider.

  45. The theorists behind the Halbig lawsuit wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/reining-in-obamacareand-the-president-1406071746

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—a tribunal second only to the Supreme Court—ruled on Tuesday that the Obama administration broke the law. The panel found that President Obama spent billions of taxpayer dollars he had no authority to spend, and subjected millions of employers and individuals to taxes he had no authority to impose. [snip]

    At its heart, though, Halbig is not just about ObamaCare. It is about determining whether the president, like an autocrat, can levy taxes on his own authority.

    The president’s defenders often concede that he is doing the opposite of what federal law says. Yet he claims that he is merely implementing the law as Congress intended.

    Such claims should be met with more than the usual skepticism when made by a president who openly advocates unilateral action—”I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone”—when the legislative process doesn’t produce the result he wants, and when they are made by a president whose expansive view of his powers the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected 13 times. Unfortunately, the abuse of power exposed in Halbig may trump them all. [snip]

    The Medicaid program has operated on the same principle for nearly 50 years. Only residents of cooperating states get assistance. When Congress debated health reform in 2009, both Republicans and Democrats introduced legislation conditioning health-insurance subsidies on states establishing exchanges. Senate Democrats advanced two leading health-care bills. Both allowed federal exchanges to operate without subsidies. One of them became law.

    The only thing that is uncommon about the Affordable Care Act is that two-thirds of the states refused to comply. Yet federal law is clear, consistent and unambiguous: The Obama administration has no authority to issue subsidies outside “an Exchange established by the State.” According to congressional investigators, Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service personnel even admitted they knew the statute did not authorize them to dispense subsidies in states with exchanges established by the federal government. Yet the IRS still promulgated a rule authorizing subsidies in states with federal exchanges. [snip]

    Subsidies for policies purchased on an exchange automatically trigger taxes against both employers and individuals who do not purchase the mandated level of coverage. So when the president issued those subsidies in states where he had no authority to do so, he also imposed, on millions of employers and individuals, taxes that no Congress ever authorized. Two states, dozens of public-school districts, and several private-sector employers and individual taxpayers filed Halbig and three other lawsuits to block that unlawful spending and the illegal taxes it triggers.

    The president’s supporters claim that Halbig is meritless because Congress clearly intended to authorize subsidies through federal exchanges. If that were Congress’s intent, certainly one should be able to find some statutory language to that effect. Or contemporaneous quotes from the law’s authors explaining that they intended the Affordable Care Act to authorize subsidies in federal exchanges. The president’s supporters have had three years to find such evidence supporting their theory of congressional intent. They have come up empty.

    The administration’s legal strategy is therefore, of necessity, bizarre. The president’s representatives argue in court that Congress intended to use the words limiting subsidies to exchanges “established by the State,” and intended to authorize subsidies through exchanges established by the federal government, without ever explicitly reconciling the contradiction. Also on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Internal Revenue Service rule as a permissible interpretation of an ambiguous statute, as if there were anything ambiguous about the difference between a state and the federal government.

    The D.C. Circuit saw through this nonsense. One by one, it rejected the government’s many arguments. The court held the Affordable Care Act “does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges” and “the government offers no textual basis . . . for concluding that a federally-established Exchange is, in fact or legal fiction, established by a state.” The administration’s decision to issue those subsidies anyway is thus contrary to the statute and “gives the individual and employer mandates . . . broader effect than they would have” if the government followed the law.

    While the dissent in Halbig highlighted the plaintiff’s motives, the majority opinion came from Judge Thomas B. Griffith, whose nomination in 2005 was supported by prominent Democrats including Seth Waxman, David Kendall, and even then-Sen. Barack Obama. Judge Griffith noted that while the court’s ruling could have a significant impact on the Affordable Care Act, “high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.”

  46. Kwalija is pretty damned thick between the ears. . .
    ——————————————–

    Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, protested Monday about the continuing House investigations, including his committee’s plans to call IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to testify on Wednesday, for the third time over the past month.

    “This public harassment of an agency head is not only an abuse of authority, but a dereliction of the committee’s obligation to conduct responsible oversight on a host of other critical issues within our jurisdiction,” he said.

    ———————————-

    House investigators: IRS tech experts say Lerner’s hard drive only ‘scratched,’ not destroyed

    Published July 22, 2014
    ·FoxNews.com

    2.6K

    share image

    lerner_lois_052213.jpg

    FILE: May 22, 2013: eX-IRS official Lois Lerner is sworn in on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C.AP

    House investigators said Tuesday that the computer hard drive of ex-agency official Lois Lerner — a key figure in the IRS targeting scandal — was only “scratched,” not irreparably damaged, as Americans have been led to believe.

    GOP-led Ways and Means Committee investigators, in their quest to recover missing Lerner emails, learned her hard drive was damaged but recoverable by talking to IRS information-technology experts, after the government originally refused to make them available, according to the committee.

    “It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive,” said committee Chairman Dave Camp.

    The Michigan Republican said the new information also raises more questions about potential criminal wrongdoing at the IRS because the committee was told no data was recoverable and the physical hard drive was recycled and potentially shredded.

    In addition, learning that the hard drive was only scratched also raises questions about why the IRS refused to use outside experts to recover the data.

    “In fact, in-house professionals at the IRS recommended the agency seek outside assistance in recovering the data,” the committee said Tuesday in a release.

    House investigators said they also are trying to determine whether the scratch was accidental or deliberate.

    “If the IRS would just come clean and tell Congress and the American people what really happened, we could put an end to this,” Camp said. “Our investigators will not stop until we find the full truth.”

    Lerner was the IRS’s exempt organizations director during the period of 2009 to mid-2011 — when applications for tax-exempt status from Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations were held up for extra scrutiny.

    The committee also said the information gleamed from the new interviews conflicts with a July 18 IRS court filing that states the data on the hard drive was unrecoverable — including years of missing emails.

    On June 13, more than one year into the investigation, and one month after the committee was promised it would receive all of Lerner’s emails, Congress learned that potentially thousands of them, over roughly two years, were destroyed as a result of a 2011 computer crash.

    The recent interviews are bolstered by former federal law-enforcement and Defense Department forensic experts also telling investigators that most of the data on a scratched drive should be recoverable, the committee said.

    A declaration filed Friday by the IRS stated the agency tried but failed to recover the data. The agency also said it is not sure what happened to the hard drive, other than saying they think it was recycled, which according to the court filing means “shredded.”

    The committee also said a review of internal IRS documents found Lerner’s computer was actually described as “recovered.”

    The targeting to the groups applying to the IRS was made public in May 2013 by Lerner. She has since refused to testify before Congress, invoking the Fifth Amendment, and resigned in September 2013.

    The IRS has turned over tens of thousands of emails to and from Lerner’s account and says it has recovered thousands of others that were lost when her government-issued computer crashed.

    Democrats say there is no scandal and that Republicans are trying to turn it into an election-year issue.

    Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, protested Monday about the continuing House investigations, including his committee’s plans to call IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to testify on Wednesday, for the third time over the past month.

    “This public harassment of an agency head is not only an abuse of authority, but a dereliction of the committee’s obligation to conduct responsible oversight on a host of other critical issues within our jurisdiction,” he said.

    Investigators also are still trying to learn whether the targeting of conservative groups was ordered by the White House.

  47. admin
    July 23, 2014 at 1:53 am

    Judge Griffith noted that while the court’s ruling could have a significant impact on the Affordable Care Act, “high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.”
    ————
    Johnahan Turley will be pleased with this decision. It validates what he said in his testimony before congress. Meanwhile Obama dithers on whether to move to Rancho Mirage. I can tell you for a fact, the residents are not happy about this decision, any more than the rest of society is thrilled with Obamacare, other than big media. So lets level the playing field. Since big media loves Obamacare, they should have the privilege of paying for it, for themselves and for the rest of us. Jack Lew would approve because he is all for this economic patriotism bullshit, and big media needs to demonstrate that they are more than rent seeking parasites/

  48. And for the 4th circuit panel, the principle of legislative supremacy presented “a close question”? A first year law student could do a better job with the case than they did. Shame on them, and their poorly reasoned opinion.

  49. The Republican Party really is the party of stupid. If they should leverage the 2 billion big media will receive from candidates in 2016 to buy air time on their network against their right to fundamental fairness in the debates. I can understand why they might want to give all big media, excluding msnbc an opportunity to host one debate, in order to reach all audiences, but if they do not insist on an agreeable moderator and bipartisan panels, they should tell the hold-out network that the conditions for their participation have not been met, ergo they will not be allowed to host a debate. Think of the money that network would lose. I would hold that over their heads like the sword of Damocles.

  50. Thanks to Admin and Wbboei for explaining the ins, outs and tactics that must be used dealing with this administration. The 4Th circuit decision very much reads like a rushed up working draft put out for PR and political purposes to take the topic out of the news cycle and to avoid riling up an already riled up public. It looks like this White House is stumbling along stomping out sparks with little thought about the long view of their catastrophes. They just want to make it to November and then get through the next two years with all of their teeth.

    And how about that professional pol Chamber of Commerce pro-amnesty shill loosing his primary in Georgia? He took their money, he stayed bought, and he lost. LOL. Obama’s border invasion screwed up their plans. I hope getting the 4th Circuit to pull the trigger too soon works out the same way.

  51. ____________

    From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Establishment Republican loses, blames it on the country’s mistrust of Washington

    _________________

    http://www.ajc.com

    David Perdue wins Republican Senate nomination

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Businessman David Perdue stunned Georgia’s Republican political establishment Tuesday by capturing the party’s U.S. Senate nomination in his first run for office.
    The former CEO of Reebok and Dollar General toppled 11-term Rep. Jack Kingston by a narrow margin, setting up a battle of political newcomers with famous kin in the fall. Perdue’s cousin, Sonny, was a two-term governor and Nunn’s father, Sam, was a four-term U.S. Senator.

    In addition to his famous last name and lingering political network from his cousin, Perdue deployed $3 million of his own money to back his bid. Still, he was outspent by Kingston and allied Super PACs – including the deep pocketed U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    Kingston conceded the race as late-arriving metro Atlanta counties seemed to give Perdue a narrow win. Kingston hoped his south Georgia base would power him to victory, but lighter-than-expected turnout hobbled his chance.

    Kingston immediately pledged his support in a concession call to Perdue and told him “once we combine our two camps we will absolutely be unstoppable.”
    As for why he fell short, Kingston said he was unable to shake the Washington insider label.

    “People are very frustrated with Washington, D.C., and I think that was a big hurdle,” Kingston said. “And my opponent capitalized on that — as he should.”

  52. Another detail from GA primary win 🙂 🙂 reported by Mormaer & freespirit.
    Snip Perdue overcame Kingston after an overwhelmingly negative and protracted primary. His win was a defeat for the heavy-spending U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which dropped at least $2.3 million into Georgia to support Kingston, according to disclosures to the Federal Election Commission. Snip http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/david-perdue-wins-drawn-georgia-primary/story?id=24672832

  53. The degree of disaster that the 4th Circuit has brought down on the Obama White House is slowly sinking in on my non-legal brain. The Dems (led by the White House) planned on dragging out the Halbig decision, which they were told by luminaries such as Lawrence Tribe was going to be a bust, was to be appealed to an en banc court packed panel, and then leisurely meander to the Supreme Court to be decided after Obama was out of office and no longer subject to personal humiliation and keep it out of the public view (and use by Republicans as a political fulcrum). But the public relations dominated White House, who runs on a 24 hour one-upmanship credo to never loose a pissing contest, got the rushed out half assed law clerk written decision of the 4th Circuit flung out as PR fodder. As losers the 4th circuit plaintiffs were handed the whip hand due to White House pique and can skip the en banc of the 4th and shoot it up to the Supremes with the government lawyers having to defend a crappy 4th circuit amateur job BEFORE Obama is out of office. Am I on the right path in my reasoning? Am I missing something in this complete flub in strategy? I think they shot themselves in both feet. I’m so jaded I find this notion hilarious.

  54. This article found at Real Clear Politics ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html
    challenges Ezra Klein’s (Obama cheerleader) opinion that the Supremes will do nothing to stop the subsidies, because (in Ezra’s opinion) of poor grammar in the ACA bill. Klein’s article also featured at Real Clear Politics.

    I would so love to see smug, super-cool Klein have to eat his words.
    ___________________

    Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously

    By Sean Trende – July 23, 2014

    On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the subsidy provisions of the Affordable Care Act for states that have not implemented their own exchanges. The court found that the plain wording of the statute made clear that Congress authorized subsidies only in exchanges established by a state, and that the federal government is not a state. Thus, subsidies are not authorized in exchanges established by the federal government.

    You can find a fuller description of the arguments in the case in this article that I wrote last year. Rather than recap that, I would just like to look briefly at the general reaction to the decision among pundits. Ezra Klein typifies this:

    “The Supreme Court simply isn’t going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar. . . . For Halbig to unwind Obamacare, the Supreme Court would ultimately have to rule in the plaintiff’s favor. And they’re not going to do that. By the time SCOTUS even could rule on Halbig the law will have been in place for years.”

    This sort of reaction is a mistake, at least insofar as a pundit is trying to figure out what the Supreme Court might actually do, if and when the case makes its way to 1 First St. In the eyes of the conservative justices who comprise a majority of the court, the arguments made by plaintiffs will be taken very seriously.

    First, whatever you may think of the merits of the case, this isn’t about “grammar,” nor is it about a typo — even the judges who have found for the government haven’t done so on the basis of a scrivener’s error. The law is poorly worded, and the issue is to what degree the courts will stick to that poor wording.

    Second, if this sounds a lot like the initial reactions to some of the theories surrounding the constitutional challenges to the ACA from 2012, it should, and that should worry supporters of the subsidies. Commentators were certain that the court wouldn’t buy into the distinction between “commerce” and “absence of commerce,” and were positive that the justices wouldn’t rule for plaintiffs on the spending power limitations to the Medicaid expansion. On this, they were incorrect. The judges here are even breaking down along partisan lines again (Roger Gregory is technically a Bush appointee, but he was first nominated by Bill Clinton, then renominated by George W. Bush as an olive branch to Democrats who were beginning to threaten to derail Bush’s first round of circuit court nominees), much as they were in the ACA challenge.

    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html#ixzz38IHTreMM
    Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

  55. Shadowfax
    July 22, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    …throw the bum out moment…

    That’s how I have voted since 2008.
    ______________________________

    So many Bums so little time Shadow. 🙁

  56. freespirit
    July 23, 2014 at 8:00 am

    ____________

    From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Establishment Republican loses, blames it on the country’s mistrust of Washington
    _____________________________

    There is no reason to trust Government Freespirit None!!!! :mas:

  57. I would so love to see smug, super-cool Klein have to eat his words.
    ___________________

    When a nerd like Ezra, the original jurnolister and remittance man from Washpo, pretends to be cool, you just know that the real world has been turned upside down, and does not matter to the snarling delusional totalitarian leftist.

  58. Mormaer
    July 23, 2014 at 8:10 am
    ————
    Spot on.

    Politics uber alles, win every pissing contest in the moment, is proving to be a self defeating strategy. This gets back to the fundamental difference between tactics and strategy, and when tactics are allowed to operate in a vaccuum, with no regard for overall strategy as they were hear based on your analysis, a Pyrrhic victory is not unlikely.

  59. “The Supreme Court simply isn’t going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar. . . . For Halbig to unwind Obamacare, the Supreme Court would ultimately have to rule in the plaintiff’s favor. And they’re not going to do that. By the time SCOTUS even could rule on Halbig the law will have been in place for years.”
    ——————
    This is a pure polemic which may help a little maggot like Ezra make it through the night but does nothing to clarify the issue. The legislative history of the act, including the position taken by the corn husker senator make clear that this was not an inadvertent omission but part of the log rolling process of legislative concessions (or bribes, if you prefer) that took place in order to get this damned thing passed. Thus, the fact that it does not provide for subsidies in this instance it is hardly an issue of grammar, and to present it as such is intellectually dishonest. The intent was clear, and the words followed the intent. The real question, then, is whether the Supreme Court should re write the statute, to the benefit of one legislative constitutency–those forced on the exchange, and to the detriment of another–taxpayers in general, in order to save what the New York Times once called the greatest civil rights victory since 1964. Suffice it to say that an estimable jurist who wore the hat of Sir Thomas Moore to Obama’s 2008 inauguration, and is the high priest of strict construction because its opposite–the living constitution is the death of democracy, is not likely to be impressed with the little maggots hyperventilated argument, any more than I am.

  60. The loss of coverage for millions of Americans unless the Supreme Court ignores the Constitution, and covers for the Administration? To frame the issue that way is extortionist. What happens in that instance, is after this provision of the law is declared unconstitutional, the ball goes back to congress, where it belonged all the while. This waving of the bloody shirt is disgusting, but typical of the people we are dealing with, who have no qualms about screaming fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

  61. The problem, as the justices point out in their brief, is that the government has done just that. Federal territories are subject to the mandates, but they don’t get subsidies. So clearly the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services think that, at least in some cases, Congress would and did enact exactly the system — guaranteed issue, community rating, but no subsidies — that the government lawyers are claiming they would never consider.
    ———
    Admin: when this policy decision was announced, you asked whether it was done in anticipation of the Halbig case. I think the answer to that question has to be no, because by announcing that even though the territories were bound by the mandate, they were not ineligible for the subsidies, they undercut their basic argument which is that the intent was to provide subsidies to all covered entities whether or not they had set up exchanges. The DC panel was perceptive enough to pick up on this fundamental flaw, and implicit admission by the Obama administration.

  62. wbboei
    July 23, 2014 at 3:21 am

    And for the 4th circuit panel, the principle of legislative supremacy presented “a close question”? A first year law student could do a better job with the case than they did. Shame on them, and their poorly reasoned opinion.

    ——-

    This is the same ‘school of law’ that Baracko belongs to. Get carried though Harvard law school, put in the minimum amount of effort and education so you can be groomed to be the first HALF black president.

    Why are there so many $hitty, know nothing, do nothing lawyers like this? If you have the money and connections, even someone like Bush Jr can be a Skull and Bones from Harvard.

    The bad lawyer jokes are written because of this breed of dingbats and crooks.

  63. Free

    Establishment Republican loses, blames it on the country’s mistrust of Washington

    ——-

    When will these idiots finally man-up?

    I would love to hear someone that loses an election admit their flaws instead of blaming it on misdirected voters and others.

  64. Wbboei, we’ll continue to look for answers to our question but it is likely that your incredible answer is entirely correct. Your answers is so crazy that it is hard to accept it as accurate but right now we can’t think of another answer in light of the D.C. decision.

    What your response leads to is that as bad and incompetent as we think the Obama crew is – they are even worse! Was it arrogance that led them to exempt the territories, surmising that they can act with impunity and that judges will not take judicial notice of relevant events? Or are they so stupid, stupid beyond our wildest understanding of that word, that they did not think the territory decision would impact their legal challenges?

    Thanks for remembering and answering our question and doing so in a most astounding response. Reading what you wrote is a head shaking moment of disbelief, shock, acceptance. And yes, the D.C. court opinion was “perceptive enough” to pick up and use this news to fatten their decision with intellectual heft.

  65. Mormaer
    July 23, 2014 at 8:10 am

    ——
    I really enjoyed your summation!

    Perfect or slightly flawed, it was great.

  66. imho…the problem with O and his crew is that they are not paying attention to what they say they are trying to accomplish…

    if you run your whole presidency by thinking the be-all answer and solution to everything is to stand in front of a mike and read from a teleprompter on the issue, proposal or the current crisis of the day and that is basically all you have to…

    …and then you are free to run off to fundraisers, parties, golf, whatever…then the results are simple:

    the answer we get from the O admin after each problem or scandal arises is

    “we just found out about it…we found out about it reading the newspaper like you…we had no idea” etc…

    that is what you get when you spend most of your week…week after week…at fundraisers, vacations and parties…searching for hamburgers…any distraction you can come up with so the ‘bear can be loose’

    bottom line…the O defensive excuse re: fundraisers/vacations is that O can do two things at once and he is always informed wherever he is…this lame excuse cannot exist in the same realm of

    “we just found out about…we had no idea…there was no way of knowing…who would have thought”

    O and his crew have no way of knowing and are constantly caught flat footed is because they are not paying attention…they are cruising along…winging it…and hoping that his persona can pull it off…

    so no matter what we bring up. Ocare, IRS, on and on…it always gets back to the bottom line…O and his crew are not functioning as adults with a seriousness…they just throw anything against the wall and then flit off to something else…leaving everything they have thrown at the wall is disarry and a botched failure.

    O has never drilled down into the depths of his presidency…and now he is actually trying to run away from it…

  67. In August 2011, Obama directed ICE to use “prosecutorial discretion” to keep its hands off children here illegally (under the guise of prioritizing criminal aliens).
    In June 2012, Obama made that policy more formal with his DREAM executive order. Children would not be deported.
    If there were any recent changes in our drug policies or drug war execution in Central America, they happened comfortably into Obama’s term in office.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/is_emanythingem_obamas_fault.html

  68. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

    It is the third time in a week where pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with the city’s Jewish residents. On Sunday, locals reported chats of “Gas the Jews” and “Kill the Jews”, as rioters attacked businesses in the Sarcelles district, known as “little Jerusalem”.

    Manuel Valls, France’s prime minister said: “What happened in Sarcelles is intolerable. An attack on a synagogue and on a kosher shop is simply anti-Semitism. Nothing in France can justify this violence.” [snip]

    Eighteen people were arrested for attacks on shops, including a kosher supermarket, a Jewish-owned chemist and a funeral home. Rioters, who carried batons and threw petrol bombs according to eyewitnesses, were yards from the synagogue when they were driven back by riot police who used tear gas.

    “They were shouting: ‘Death to Jews,’ and ‘Slit Jews’ throats’,” David, a Jewish sound engineer told The Times. “It took us back to 1938.”

  69. Cantor Purdue Kingston lost on the same issue:

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/07/23/the-chambers-immigration-stance-hurts-their-georgia-pick/

    All the public and private polling I saw, like this for example, had Jack Kingston ahead of David Perdue. All the buzz privately was Kingston ahead of Perdue.

    And Kingston lost. I supported him. He’s one of the few candidates I supported in the Georgia runoffs who lost. And I can tell you why Kingston lost.

    I have evening drive time on the most listened to talk station in America. Every night for the last month on my show I’ve gotten the same concern on the phones, in emails, on twitter, on Facebook, etc. Kingston had the Chamber of Commerce’s endorsement. The Chamber of Commerce is bad on immigration. Therefore Kingston would be bad on immigration. In fact, his opponent and now the GOP nominee for the Senate in Georgia made a point to tell people that Kingston was the Chamber endorsed candidate. His closing argument in advertising made Kingston own the endorsement.

    I tried pointing out that Kingston had consistently opposed amnesty, but it did not matter. After the Mississippi Senate primary, the conservative voters in Georgia were having none of it.

    In the last two weeks, David Perdue made hay out of walking out of his meeting with the Chamber. He claimed the Chamber wanted him to vote with them 100% of the time. He would not.

    That message resonated. Kingston was the career politician in the pocket of the Chamber and would pass amnesty.

    Not now. He lost. And he did so largely because David Perdue made Kingston own his Chamber of Commerce endorsement.

    Illegal immigration killed both Cantor and Kingston.

  70. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) was fact-checked on the air with Nevada television journalist Jon Ralston after she made a false claim about the state’s Republican Governor Brian Sandoval.

  71. admin
    July 23, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Cantor Purdue lost on the same issue:
    ________________________

    Admin I predict more losses over this issue. 🙂

  72. Admin:

    Does history repeat itself?

    If so, what can we learn so we do not repeat its mistakes?

    Case in point: Red Vienna–your video made me think of it.

    In the aftermath of World War I, out of the ashes of the Hapsburg empire, a city emerged where Catholics, Muslims, Atheist, Nihilists, Nazis and Communist lived together in perfect Harmony. The town was “Red Vienna” and it was presented to the world as a paradigmatic example of multiculturalism.

    But owing to a number of factors, including but not limited to an economic depression, the lack of a moral center, and the competition for power between totalitarian groups, it was not destined to last.

    One of the salient factors in its demise was the incompatibility of the politics of that capital city with the politics and culture of the countryside.

    A distant mirror perhaps of our own situation, where Washington survives and prospers at the expense of the rest of the nation, until a tipping point is reached. And then, a new force emerges which repudiates all that came before.

    —————–
    After World War I had ended with the collapse and dismemberment of the Habsburg dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, Deutschösterreich (German Austria) was proclaimed a republic on November 12, 1918. At the Gemeinderat (city parliament) elections of May 4, 1919, for the first time ever all adult citizens of both sexes had voting rights. The Social Democratic Party gained an absolute majority; Jakob Reumann was elected first social democratic mayor, to be succeeded in 1923 by Karl Seitz.

    The city underwent many changes in these times. During the war, refugees from Austrian Galicia (now West Ukraine), which was partly occupied by the Russian army, had settled in the capital city. At the end of the war, many former soldiers of the Imperial and Royal Army came to stay in Vienna, at least temporarily, while many former Imperial-Royal government ministry officials returned to their native lands. The middle classes, many of whom had bought War Bonds that were now worthless, were plunged into poverty by hyperinflation. New borders between Austria and the nearby regions that had fed Vienna for centuries made food supply difficult. Flats were overcrowded, and diseases such as tuberculosis, the Spanish flu and syphilis raged. In the new Austria, Vienna was considered a capital much too big for the small country, and often called Wasserkopf by people living in other parts of the country.

    On the other hand, optimists saw wide fields of social and political action opening up. Pragmatic intellectuals like Hans Kelsen, who drafted the republican constitution, and Karl Bühler found a lot to do. For them it was a time of awakening, of new frontiers and of optimism.[1]

    The intellectual resources of Red Vienna were remarkable: Ilona Duczynska and Karl Polanyi, as well as several other socialist intelligentsia gladly relocated to Vienna or went there in exile from elsewhere, in addition to Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Karl Bühler, Arthur Schnitzler, Karl Kraus, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Adolf Loos, Arnold Schoenberg and many other scientists, artists, publishers and architects, while not all socialists, did not participate in the principal opposition of the clerical conservatives but viewed the development and modernisation of Vienna with sympathy.

    John Gunther characterised the overall setting of Vienna between the wars: “The disequilibrium between Marxist Vienna and the clerical countryside was the dominating Motiv of Austrian politics until the rise of Hitler. Vienna was socialist, anti-clerical, and, as a municipality, fairly rich. The hinterland was poor, backward, conservative, Roman Catholic, and jealous of Vienna’s higher standard of living.”

  73. foxyladi14
    July 23, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    ———
    A fine corollary to Twain’s wry observation that no man is safe when congress is in session.

    It point to the undeniable fact that there is only one thing worse than having a president who fails to rise to the challenge of governing, and that is one who decides to do so, when he lacks the aptitude, and creates by dint of his incompetence and perseverence, not just a further problem, but a full blown cluster fuck. So please Messiah, stop trying to lead, cease and desist in leading from behind, turn off your cellphone and spend the next five years doing fundraisers and nothing else. We will supply the script, the mike and the choom. All you need to do is show up, and you’re feted.

  74. foxyladi14
    July 23, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Debbie UglyHair still has that mop? Sorry, but I can’t even take this woman seriously.

  75. It is clear from the above link that Obama wants congress to appropriate billions to deal with the crisis on the border, but he and his congressional co-conspirator Reid have no intention of addressing the root cause of the crisis, which is the statue Bush put into effect in 2008, and the ultra vires actions by Obama in 2012. The net effect is there will be no legislative action by congress in the foreseeable future to deal with this dangerous and mushrooming situation which will undermine to rule of law. In the last 6 years, in Texas alone, illegals have committed something like 600,000 crimes against Texas citizens, and that number will increase as well. Notice how well Cronyn handles himself and how poorly McConnell does. If Kentucky falls to the Democrat, Cronyn will be the Majority or Minority leader, depending on how the rest of the cards fall.

  76. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-obama-lands-at-lax-greeted-by-protest-20140723-story.html#

    President Obama landed at Los Angeles International Airport around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday amid protests from both commuters and street artists..

    “POTUS has arrived at LAX,” the Los Angeles Airport Police Department wrote in a tweet, including a photo of the president’s airplane.

    Traffic crawls along Santa Monica Boulevard as dozens of California Highway Patrol motorcycles are on standby to lead President Obama and his entourage from the Beverly Hilton Hotel during a 2012 visit.

    Website creators and Twitter users posted photos of street art listing Obama’s “Scandals,” a reference to his scheduled fundraiser at the home of Shonda Rhimes, the creator of the popular ABC television show “Scandal.”

    One website, The Blaze, posted about the street art, which included images on benches and posters. Words on the images, paired with Obama’s face, include “Benghazi” and “NSA.”

    Other users responded or linked to the street art posts, saying things like “NICE!” and “You’re gonna love this.”

    Twitter users reported the president arriving at LAX a few minutes after the scheduled landing time. The airport’s Twitter account tweeted a photo of an aircraft, captioning it with “Marine One at LAX ready for President Obama to land in the City of Angels.”

    Throughout the day, social media users complained about street closures, many adopting the hashtags #Obamatraffic and #thanksObama.

    snip

    After Obama landed, one user tweeted: “Last time I checked we don’t live in Gaza or Ukraine so idk why Obama can’t use a helicopter to get around Los Angeles #ObamaTraffic”.

    “Welcome to California. Now go home. #ImpeachObama” another user wrote in a tweet.

    **********************************

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/23/obama-greeted-in-los-angeles-with-street-art-campaign-about-his-scandals/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

    When President Barack Obama stops by the Los Angeles home of ”Scandal” creator Shonda Rhimes for a $32,400-per-plate fundraising dinner Wednesday, he’ll be greeted with a list of some of his own “Scandals” as part of a rogue campaign by an L.A. street artist.

    photos there

  77. Round 15: Trey vs. E.T. (that arrogant willfully blind major Obama donor who is pretending to be the head of the IRS)

    (Hint: Trey cuts through E,T.’s word salad defenses and slaps him silly–again)

    If they go into extra rounds, they should sell tickets.

    We might raise more money doing that than Obama can raise fiddling while Rome (and E.T. burn).

    Speaking of burning, Obama is the political equivalent of an arsonist.

    First, he sets a fire (overtly or clandestinely)

    Second, he walks away from it.

    Third, when someone says do something, he keeps a safe distance.

    Fourth, when they insist, he gives a speech and claims he is working on it, when in fact he is not.

    Fifth, when the flames start licking at his but, he looks for scapegoats.

    And what does big media do in response? They say things like, this is a complex problem, no president has ever had to deal with a problem of this magnitude, the republicans are being obstructionist because they cannot stand to see a black man in the white house, and what they tell you is a problem is not a problem–like the lady at the Haines underwear factory, its not a crisis til we say it is a crisis.

    Oh, I almost forgot, here is the link to the rumble:

    (Note: for the benefit of those seeking the truth, the whining obstructionism and vile recriminations of Kwalija Cummings who maintains his original position that there was no targeting, no scandal, and his office was not holding secret conversations with Lerner’s council even though he has, must have been edited out from this tape, or else, as a concession to the shortness of life, some anonymous actor finally did the right thing and cut his mic.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/23/Trey-Gowdy-Eviscerates-IRS-Commissioner

  78. The other thing Kwalija is saying is that the Oversight Committee is abusing its authority by cross examining the evasive head of the IRS over this issue, that he is an honorable man even though he his evasive, arrogant and condescending toward congress and the public, and the committee has more important things to do than investigate whether the IRS has been weaponized and used to attack political opponents and their first amendment rights.

    More important things, Kwalija?

    Like what?

  79. Silly me. No sooner do I ask the question than I see realize the answer is obvious:

    Question: what could be more important to Kwalija than holding a hearing to investigate whether the IRS has become such a rogue agency that they pose a clear and present danger to the American People?

    Answer: simple: holding a hearing to determine whether the name of the Washington Redskins should be changed so as not to offend Native Americans who may not be offended at all, but should be according to Kwalija. After that they could hold a hearing on slavery reparations. After that a hearing to determine whether Obama’s birthday should replace Lincoln’s birthday. As you can see, its all a question of priorities, and Kwalija’s to do list is quite long.

  80. The slavery reparations movement has assumed a greater sense of urgency for Kwalija, since its foremost exponent, John Conyers, missed the Wayne County filing deadline, and will retire now by dint of his own incompetence.

  81. Conyers finest moment came when he told us he never reads the bills he votes on, and the suggestion that he read the Affordable Care Act before he cast his ballot was summarily dismissed. Obviously, he was an adherent to the Pelosi school which says, you have to pass a law in order to know what is in it. Try that one the next time someone sues you for breach of contract. Trust me, failing to read the document is not an affirmative defense.

  82. There are three rules of interpretation which support the ruling by the panel of the DC circuit, which were not covered in the opinion, but should have some bearing on the issue.

    Rule 1: if the language of the written instrument are specific, clear and ambiguous, then you must implement the plain meaning. The court adopted that principle without identifying it as such.

    Rule 2: when the terms of that instrument are ambiguous, as some would have you believe, then you look behind the document to the bargaining history, between the parties, which in this case is the legislative history. Here again, the Administration is screwed, because they did not allow open debate over this legislation, and did not even let members read it before it was passed. Therefore, there is no bargaining history to support their claim.

    Rule 3: any ambiguity in a document should be construed against the draftsman. The democrats, or rather their lobbyist drafted the language. Ergo, strike 3 for them.

  83. wbboei
    July 24, 2014 at 6:15 am

    Conyers finest moment came when he told us he never reads the bills he votes on, and the suggestion that he read the Affordable Care Act before he cast his ballot was summarily dismissed. Obviously, he was an adherent to the Pelosi school which says, you have to pass a law in order to know what is in it. Try that one the next time someone sues you for breach of contract. Trust me, failing to read the document is not an affirmative defense.
    ____________________________

    😯

  84. here is where the rubber meets the road and reality with the so called Affordable Health Care Act, or Ocare…and the very worst is yet to come as insurance companies jack up premiums so the insurance is basically useless because who can afford the deductibles…people will be out thousands and thousands of out of pocket money before their insurance kicks in with much higher premiums… and then the network they are in is so narrow that there may not even be a hospital or doctor available where they live

    …this is what happens when O, Sebelious and the Dims just threw this thing together…with not one supporter on the other side of aisle, would not listen to anyone that did not agree with them…and did not even read what they were forcing through the Senate in the dark of night after fiddling with the Senate rules to push this piece of junk on the American people…

    …all while lying to the American people that you can keep your insurance company plan, keep your doctor and keep your hospital and drugs…all bold faced LIES…fraud

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/23/cnn-poll-twice-as-many-americans-hurt-by-obamacare-than-helped-n1865078

    snip

    3) Obamacare’s overall approval rating remains upside-down by nearly 20 points (40/59), virtually unchanged from its March “rebound.” Democrats’ self-congratulatory convulsions over “eight million new enrollees” failed to move the needle.

    But of those consumer who have been affected, they break two-to-one into the “worse off” camp. Obamacare is helping some people; mostly Americans with preexisting conditions and those who are eligible for very generous subsidies. But it’s hurting far more people. And a substantial majority oppose the law. Obamacare was pitched as a win/win for everyone, with no trade-offs and no losers. That has not been the case. Indeed, Politico is showcasing one class of Obamacare losers, who’ve encountered “access shock” — a phenomenon we’ve been tracking for quite some time:

    Anger over limited choice of doctors and hospitals in Obamacare plans is prompting some states to require broader networks — and boiling up as yet another election year headache for the health law…It’s not just a political problem. It’s a policy conundrum. Narrow networks help contain health care costs. If state or federal regulators — or politicians — force insurers to expand the range of providers, premiums could spike. And that could create a whole new wave of political and affordability problems that can shape perceptions of Obamacare.

    The Tampa Bay Times profiles one woman whose frustrating experience underscores this problem:

    Charlene Lake thought she got a decent deal through the Affordable Care Act marketplace: a Humana HMO that included a family doctor a few miles from her home. Five months later, Lake wonders if she can even use the insurance she bought. Her plan’s dominant health care provider, JSA Medical Group, recently announced that it would take no new patients covered by Humana’s exchange HMOs at least until fall. That leaves Lake no choice but to use the community health centers left in her plan’s network, rather than the traditional physician’s practice on which she planned. She has company…aside from first-year fumbles, the case also shows the downside of limiting consumer choice of physicians through what is known as narrow networks. Or, in Lake’s case, a network so narrow it barely exists. “You can’t make people sign up for a health care plan and then not have a doctor,” said Lake, a St. Petersburg antiques dealer who is in her 50s. Narrow networks of hospitals and physicians help insurers maintain profitability while holding down premiums and complying with ACA rules.

    Lake’s quandary is redolent of the doctor-finding headache an Obamacare supporter and ‘beneficiary’ from New Jersey described in April. The good news is that there’s at least one group of Obamacare enrollees who have voiced zero complaints whatsoever about their benefits: The fake ones.

  85. After that a hearing to determine whether Obama’s birthday should replace Lincoln’s birthday.

    ——–
    Baracko already has a special day on his birthday, April 1st.

  86. Liars, cheats and thugs!

    I just received an email, saying that I am getting this pile of smoldering poo because I am an Obama supporter.

    I guess they forgot all the nasty emails I have already sent them, telling them to go to H-e-double hockey sticks, and much worse…

    I digress, this is the snake oil they are peddling:

    Republicans vote TODAY to advance lawsuit against President Obama

    5OO,OOO Signatures Needed Against Lawsuit (click here to add your name automatically)>>

    Billie Jo — Republicans vote today to advance their frivolous lawsuit. BUT we’re still coming up 2,713 signatures short of our 5OO,OOO signature goal opposing it.

    Will you sign now to help put us over the top?

  87. if you run your whole presidency by thinking the be-all answer and solution to everything is to stand in front of a mike and read from a teleprompter on the issue, proposal or the current crisis of the day and that is basically all you have to…

    …and then you are free to run off to fundraisers, parties, golf, whatever…then the results are simple:

    the answer we get from the O admin after each problem or scandal arises is

    “we just found out about it…we found out about it reading the newspaper like you…we had no idea” etc…

    that is what you get when you spend most of your week…week after week…at fundraisers, vacations and parties…searching for hamburgers…any distraction you can come up with so the ‘bear can be loose’

    bottom line…the O defensive excuse re: fundraisers/vacations is that O can do two things at once and he is always informed wherever he is…this lame excuse cannot exist in the same realm of

    “we just found out about…we had no idea…there was no way of knowing…who would have thought”

    O and his crew have no way of knowing and are constantly caught flat footed is because they are not paying attention…they are cruising along…winging it…and hoping that his persona can pull it off…

    so no matter what we bring up. Ocare, IRS, on and on…it always gets back to the bottom line…O and his crew are not functioning as adults with a seriousness…they just throw anything against the wall and then flit off to something else…leaving everything they have thrown at the wall is disarry and a botched failure.

    O has never drilled down into the depths of his presidency…and now he is actually trying to run away from it…

    ___________

    S, a big hell yeah to this! O has spent a lifetime getting passes and getting by. He has bamboozled and be-bopped his way through life. Never vetted. Never held accountable. Never held to the same standard as others because to do so would imply RACISM. The man truly is a paper tiger being held together by tape and glue applied by MSM and his devotees, who either want to ride his coattails, use him as a pawn, or are too damn young, stupid, and/or idealistic to recognize that he is not now, has never been, nor will he ever be a person of substance or even a person of more than average intellect.

  88. Good to have so many legal minds here to explain the rulings, but I think no one will turn over fraudcare…too many pigs on the take…we are screwed. The best we can hope for is that it get overhauled by the next President to something legal, and usable.

  89. This is so backwards: Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez snip “I think there are sectors of our party, more in the Senate than anywhere else, that are concerned about their own political viability, either of the party or their own particular candidacies in the Democratic party, and I think that’s what’s fundamentally wrong,” Mr. Gutierrez said Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “When public policy is defined through electoral goals and the goals of a party, then human rights and civil rights always suffer.” snip http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/25/rep-luis-gutierrez-senate-dems-wary-immigration-po/

  90. holdthemaccountable
    July 25, 2014 at 8:17 am

    I have seen the line of thought Gutierrez is espousing in several amnesty and illegal alien advocates (many who are illegals themselves) where they clearly state their belief that their rights surpass those of the majority of sovereign citizens because of their fealty to Obama. Their view of the constitution is that it is an avenue for a dictatorship or a constitutional monarchy of some kind in which they serve a strongman government who they beg favors or policies in their own favor rather than for the common good or will. They seem to have no concept that we the citizenry are the government. They think the US Treasury belongs to Obama to spend as he pleases because it belongs to him as a strongman or king and we pay taxes to him in which he will pay for the wave of illegal aliens personally. Gutierrez is a radical, ignorant, and anti-democratic and would fit right in a banana republic.

  91. The DC circuit was right and now there is video proof. The same guy has been making the media rounds claiming the wording in Obamacare was a boo-boo recently. And he was paid hugely by the administration to consult on the drafting of the bill and claims to have written part of it. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/architect-of-obamacare-you-only-get-tax-credits-if-buy-on-state-exchange/

    “In 2012, Gruber gave a speech in which he stated that the law clearly provided for tax credits only if the individual purchased on a state exchange:

    “I think 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.”

    He goes out to point out the politics of the provision, which would put pressure on states to make sure their own citizens received subsidies by opening state exchanges.”

  92. (AJ) – Maine’s Republican governor on Wednesday launched a push to make more “able-bodied” people work for their food stamps.

    “People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,’’ said Gov. Paul R. LePage.

    LePage will reportedly stop seeking a federal waiver — issued at the height of the Great Recession — allowing some food stamp recipients to bypass requirements that they work or volunteer, according to local news channel WCSH.

    http://youngcons.com/epic-gop-maine-gov-is-doing-something-revolutionary-with-food-stamps-and-welfare/

  93. Their view of the constitution is that it is an avenue for a dictatorship or a constitutional monarchy of some kind in which they serve a strongman government who they beg favors or policies in their own favor rather than for the common good or will.
    ——–
    Correct. And, in the societies they come from, those forms of government are prevalent, ergo it is all they know. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every democrat to ask themselves the resulting question: is your commitment to this country, its constitution and your own financial security to so tenuous, so insignificant, so shallow, that you will allow them to be twisted and perverted by adverse possessors from other nations who have no respect for our laws, want what you have, and will use our laws against us to get everything they want, under the rubric that they are political refugees, rather than economic opportunists. That is the question these self deluded people will never ask themselves, because the answer is unsatisfactory. Most are too consumed with their own small lives to know, and dimocrats are too consumed with their own power calculations and dismantling what they perceive to be the remnants of the white power structure, that they will let the system fail before they lift so much as a finger to save it. This dereliction of the obligations of citizenship will lead to a showdown at some disputed barricade, I suspect.

  94. What is Obama Hiding at His Wealthy Donor Fundraisers?

    By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | July 24th, 2014 at 01:52 PM | 12

    A common complaint about George W. Bush’s second term is that he was “insulated” and cut off from the outside world, and increasingly so from what he perceived to be a hostile press. This alleged isolation caused many liberal commentators to begin to derisively refer to President Bush as a “Bubble Boy.” It has taken considerably longer for the press to openly criticize Obama for the same tendencies given their largely shared ideological heritage but finally the Press is starting to carp openly about Obama’s refusal to allow them basic access to Presidential events.

    The specific issue that has raised the ire of the White House Correspondents’ Association is Obama’s refusal to allow members of the press access to two high dollar Super PAC fundraisers that occurred this week on the west coast.

    Tuesday, the reporters and photographers traveling with the president on Air Force One and in his motorcade were left on the gravel path not even within sight of former Costco CEO Jim Sinegal’s house in the Seattle suburbs where Obama sat for a Senate Majority PAC fundraiser with a $25,000 entrance fee.

    Wednesday morning, when he met with big donors for the House Majority PAC at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown San Francisco, they weren’t even told what room or floor he was on.

    As noted in the article, there are at least two major issues that make Obama’s participation in these events a matter of public interest and therefore open to at least some of the press. The first is that in 2010, Obama took the nearly unprecedented step of blasting a sitting Supreme Court for their Citizens United decision that paved the way effectively for the very existence of these Super PACs. In 2012, Obama campaigned heavily against them and sought to create active distance between the Super PACs that were supporting him and himself. The fact that he is now personally appearing at fundraisers for these PACs with the wealthiest 1% of the 1% is a newsworthy item.

    Second, and more importantly, Obama himself is on record opposing these Super PACs specifically for the allegedly corrupting nature of unfettered donations from large moneyed donors. Since he has apparently had a change of heart on this issue, it is a matter of public interest for the people to know what, specifically, the sitting President is doing or saying in order to encourage donations. Especially given Obama’s stated second-term agenda of acting without Congress wherever possible, the promises he makes in terms of his unilateral actions at these events is something that the public has a right to know. There is the additional fact that depending on what he says, promises, or even asks for in terms of donations, campaign finance laws and regulations potentially come into play (which is especially relevant for an administration that criminally prosecuted Dinesh D’Souza for illegally raising less than the total amount paid by a single attendee of these events). Even Politico has noted that the press has begun to express mounting outrage at the secrecy surrounding these events:

    “We think these fundraisers ought to be open to at least some scrutiny, because the president’s participation in them is fundamentally public in nature,” said Christi Parsons, the new president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “Denying access to him in that setting undermines the public’s ability to independently monitor and see what its government is doing. It’s of special concern as these events and the donors they attract become more influential in the political process.”

    Despite constant complaints from the press corps and promises from White House officials, access to the president continues to be limited. The constantly repeated line that they’re running the “most transparent administration in history” tends to prompt snickers. Halfway through Obama’s West Coast swing, it’s tipping toward outrage.
    ***

    But Obama has attended three super PAC events in the past week: one in New York last Thursday and the two on the West Coast.

    How many people Obama met with was a secret. How much they paid to get in was a secret. Finding out who the people were? Forget it. Even a general account of what the president said to them? Not from this White House.

    ***

    Schultz said Obama stands by his opposition to the Citizens United decision and support of the DISCLOSE Act and even a constitutional amendment to limit the flow of money into politics.

    But asked if participation in these events undercuts these principles, Schultz said no. Obama’s going to keep traveling the country to raise money for Democrats in the midterms as part of the commitment the White House made to the party earlier this year.

    I hope you all can understand – President Obama still stands against the corrupting influence of money in politics and still supports transparency in the political process; however, right now something more important is at stake: the election of Democrats.

    What is Obama hiding at these big money fundraising events? What is he promising the crowd in return for donations? What unilateral actions is he threatening to take? Given the fact that Obama remains the current sitting President of the United States, the public would seem to have a right to the answers to these questions. Unfortunately for them, President Obama disagrees

  95. …way, way OT…

    but I know there are some crushes here on Trey Gowdy (Foxy, Gonzo ?)…don’t know if anyone has commented while crushing…imo…last night I caught some clips of Trey when he was a federal prosecutor and it hit me…he kind of looks like Ryan Gosling…

    not important…just an observation

  96. foxyladi14. July 25, 2014 at 9:29 am – hear hear!!
    —————
    Mormaer
    July 25, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Nice to have the subject filled out as you did; thanks.
    A Judge Judy episode recently gave a hint as to the trouble this crew will be. The case was about 2 young boys fighting. Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s family. Commentary given after by defendant’s dad were repetitive assertions that “I teach my son to stand up for his rights.”
    A subset of your analysis.

  97. Now there is a SECOND Jonathan Gruber (he was paid to give these Obamacare presentations) video with him saying no subsidies to state residents unless the states cave and set up a state exchange to force the states to do as they want. He tried to defend himself today saying he didn’t remember, it was only once, and he didn’t believe the stuff he said in the first video. But now there are two different once so I guess he was crazy twice. This guy is an MIT economics professor and the “architect” of Obamacare.

  98. The Senate’s top Republican supports doubling US funds for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program, but just how the extra $225 million passes the chamber remains unclear.

    Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky issued a lengthy statement endorsing plans to increase Iron Dome funding, saying the missile interceptor system “has played a critical role in defending Israel’s population from the rocket attacks launched by Hamas from within the Gaza Strip.”

    The endorsement and public statement show how election-year politics can influence even a Senate leader’s public comments about a weapons program. So publicly embracing spending funds not requested by the White House on the Iron Dome program likely will play well back home, where McConnell will need Republican voters to turn out in big numbers if he hopes to defeat a tough Democratic

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140725/CONGRESSWATCH/307250027/McConnell-Endorses-Extra-Iron-Dome-Funds-Not-Democratic-Written-Supplemental

  99. [Waving hand]

    Trey crush here, but more for the whole package. His intelligence, sharp tongue and southern charm are the best parts for me. He has a sweet face.

  100. Shadowfax: He has hit 39%…which qualifies as circling the drain.
    ———————
    Well then, a good number of Friday evenings have just improved. Exponentially.

  101. ADMIN: THE ARTICLE S DREW OUR ATTENTION TO AT 1:54 IS SUPER IMPORTANT.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-the-obamacare-irs-nexus-1406244677

    I no longer subscribe to their website, but I purchased a hard copy of it, based on S’s notation.

    In essence, what it says is that initially, the IRS began implementing the law as written by Congress, namely that only states with exchanges would be eligible. Congress was clear that the states, not the federal government would run the exchanges. Furthermore, they assumed that regardless of which party controlled the state, the inducement of federal subsidies would overcome the objections. Later however, it became obvious that many states would not set up exchanges, which caused outside observers to focus on the language as written and wonder whether those state states who did not set up exchanges would be precluded from receiving the subsidies. Instead of going back to Congress, a political appointee, not a career bureacrat elevated the issue to a group of political appointees, took it upon themselves to issue regulations reversing the express will of congress, and making all states eligible. They knew this was wrong, and said so in their internal emails. some that actually did, would have them fail. The name of the political appointee who initiated this treachery was Emily McMahon, acting Assistant Secretary of IRS for Tax Policy.

    This revelation has significant legal ramifications in my opinion. If we go back to the Fourth Circuit decision, the panel deferred, as courts often do, to the expertise and supposed neutrality of an administrative agency. Courts have been doing this for eighty years, and they limit their scope of review of agency actions and decisions accordingly. Here however the actions of the IRS had nothing whatsoever to do with expertise. They were political, and were aimed to protect Obama. And, even worse, they were in direct violation of the will of congress. Kim’s article leaves that 3 judge panel with egg on its face. Their holding will be overruled, and rebuked I hope by the Supreme Court.

  102. With this revealation, it will be more difficult for the DC Circuit sitting en banc to white wash to act of treason and reverse the three judge panel. This disclosure will make it more difficult to rally 2/3 of the sitting judges to vote for an en banc hearing. Whether it prevents it altogether will depend on how those judges feel about corruption. Meaning, it is an imponderable.

  103. “To summarize: the IRS (famed for nitpicking and prosecuting tax law) chose to authorize hundreds of billions of illegal subsidies without performing any legal due diligence, and did so at the direction of political taskmasters. The agency’s actions provided aid and comfort to elected Democrats, even as it disenfranchised millions of Americans who voted in their states to reject state run exchanges. And Treasury KNOWS how ugly this looks, which is why it initially stonewalled Congress in its investigation–at first, by refusing to give the documents to Congressional investigators, and then redacting large portions of information.”

    Democrats will continue to use the IRS to improve its political fortunes. These subsidy shenanigans are merely one example. Add democrats hijacking the agency to target and silence political opponents. What you begin to see is the makings of a Washington agency–a body with power to harass, fine and imprison working on behalf of one political party. Richard Nixon, eat your heart out”—Kim Strassel

  104. The above is precisely what is meant by weaponizing the IRS against the American People, which is what Obama has done, under the rubric of hope and change. Don’t worry however. Big media is all aboard and will be til their dying day.

Comments are closed.