ObamaCare At Supreme Court Again

Update IV: Tomorrow is a big day at the Supreme Court for ObamaCare. The Justices will sit down for private deliberations on the latest ObamaCare case. It was no surprise therefore, that advocates on both sides of the issue took their arguments pro and con public today for one last thrust at the nine Justices. Most of the propaganda/discussion is about Justice Kennedy and his words/intentions (we speculated about that in an update below).

Yesterday, ObamaCare defenders tried to convince themselves that Justice Kennedy was on their side. Ruth Marcus today tries to keep the drum rolling but is forced to admit that maybe (as we argued) things are not as clear as ObamaCare shills HOPE:

Kennedy’s concern involved whether prohibiting subsidies on federal exchanges would be unfair — not to citizens denied subsidies, mind you, but to states themselves. States, Kennedy noted, would be put to the coercive choice of either setting up their own exchanges or being stuck with the ensuing disaster.

“From the standpoint of the dynamics of Federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we’ll send your insurance market into a death spiral,” Kennedy told Michael Carvin, the lawyer representing four individuals challenging the federal subsidies. “It seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there’s a serious constitutional problem if we accept your argument.”

Kennedy’s point has contradictory implications, one tilting in favor of those challenging the subsidies, one in the government’s direction. On the pro-challenger side, he could find that (a) the law clearly does not provide for federal subsidies and (b) is unconstitutional because it effectively forces states to establish their own exchanges.

That’s what we wrote in our of our updates. Justice Kennedy is actually making another argument for why ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL not merely statutorily defective. Kennedy thought the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in ObamaCare case #1 and to us it appears clear he still thinks it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Arguments to preserve ObamaCare are mostly scare-fests of fearmongering horror worthy of Halloween. SCOTUSblog mostly spun the line of the ObamaCare shills but we found this nugget from the down-the-middle Amy Howe:

Alito added that, if Congress didn’t want to limit the subsidies to the residents of states that had set up their own exchanges, it could have used more precise language to do so – as it did, for example, in making clear that the District of Columbia (which is not a state) nonetheless qualifies as a “state” for purposes of the ACA.

Justice Kennedy’s concerns about states’ rights resurfaced again during Verrilli’s argument, but this time pointing in the other direction. Responding to Verrilli’s contention that it would not have made any sense for the ACA to include a provision for the federal government to set up exchanges if Congress envisioned that the states would all do so, Kennedy suggested that the fall-back option might have been added so that the states could “show that they had concerns about the wisdom and workability of the [ACA] in the form that it was passed.” Later on, Kennedy also challenged other aspects of the government’s reading of the statute – for example, he cited the Court’s earlier cases to make the point that, if the IRS is going to allow “billions of dollars” of tax deductions for the subsidies, “it has to be very, very clear.

Good points all. Another tasty essay on ObamaCare which fries an ObamaCare defender’s arguments is Sean Trende’s Does ‘Joy of Cooking’ Explain Logic of King v. Burwell?

The problem, at least for the five conservative justices, is that the next case before it really might be the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and if they find for the government here, that next case will be evaluated in the shadow of a decision holding that “oil” can mean “butter,” and that “whipped with a blender” can mean “whipped by hand” (notwithstanding a statutory definition in the latter instance). They are just going to be incredibly reluctant to do so, as that would undermine an awful lot of precedent on statutory interpretation that conservatives have worked hard to erect.

Pancake recipes included.

Attorney General of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt in the Wall Street Journal provided Justice Kennedy all he needs to rule against ObamaCare with federalism as the justification. Likewise Avik Roy at Forbes provides 7 Reasons Why Obamacare ‘Federalism’ Won’t Lead Anthony Kennedy To Join The Supreme Court’s Left In King v. Burwell. It’s a CLASS-y argument by Roy.

————————————————————————–

Update III: Kennedy rules the day. Nervous Nellies, Pearl Clutchers, rule the day – as we noted in our first update. The question of the day? We’ll go with door number 3. Supreme Court oral argument: Kennedy leaning towards White House’s view on ObamaCare subsidies?:

The third option open to Kennedy is the trickiest. What if he decides that “established by a State” isn’t unclear, that the plaintiffs are obviously right that “State” means the states only, not the federal government — but that, per the federalism/coercion reasoning of those 1990s cases, that means the statute is … unconstitutional? What happens to the statute then? Is the entire subsidies scheme, not just for federal customers but for state customers, now illegal? That would be an even bigger disaster for the White House than they’re expecting.

Quo Vadis Kennedy? “But Kennedy added that the challengers may win anyway based on the plain meaning of the provision at issue.” In the comments we’ve followed up on what we think happened today. Rest assured, it will get worse. The IRS wants $490 million more to implement ObamaCare. Will Boner and House Republicans cave and give Obama/ObamaCare more money?

——————————————-

Update II: More information is in and it appears that our view in our first update is gaining support from the new reports of what happened/is happening today at the Supreme Court:

Chief Justice John Roberts said almost nothing in nearly 90 minutes of back-and-forth, and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s questions did not make clear how he will come out. Roberts was the decisive vote to uphold the law in 2012. [snip]

It may not be the statute Congress intended, but it may be the statute Congress wrote,” Scalia said of the provision in question. [snip]

Kennedy voted to strike down the health law in 2012, but on Wednesday he asked questions of both sides that made it hard to tell where he might come out this time.

He suggested that challenger Carvin’s argument raised a “serious” constitutional problem affecting the relationship between states and the federal government.

On the other hand, he seemed less than convinced by Verrilli’s reading of the law to allow the subsidies nationwide.

Justice Kennedy knows ObamaCare sucks and is unconstitutional. Any Obama and/or ObamaCare supporter who takes any solace in what Kennedy asked (see our first update) should also consider the consequences of his state/federal arguments and what that could mean when the immigration case from Texas crawls up the ladder.

——————————————————————

Update: The tea-leaf reading has already begun and most of it is uninformed. First, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg tried to demolish the case with a fierce attack on the standing of the plaintiffs. She failed.

But the most controversy, or rather pearl clutching, thus far regards a question and argument Justice Kennedy advanced. Ann Althouse is clutching pearls and declaring all is lost and that Kennedy will vote with the government. Wisely, she advises herself to read the entire transcript once it is released before jumping to pearl clutching. The smart Powerline is discouraged too. All of this pearl clutching jumps to conclusion are based on an early mid-argument report from an ObamaCare supporter at the usually good SCOTUSblog. This is the much too early assessment, via Powerline:

Eric Citron at Scotusblog provides a mid-argument report on King v. Burwell, the vital Obamacare case being heard by the Supreme Court today. According to Citron, the petitioners, who argue that subsidies are not available on the federal exchange faced a troubling question from Justice Kennedy, on whose vote the case may very well turn.

Kennedy, says Citron, “expressed deep concern with a system where the statute would potentially destroy the insurance system in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges – likening this to an unconstitutional form of federal coercion.” Recall that part of the argument in favor of the view that subsidies aren’t available on the federal exchange is the idea that Congress set up Obamacare this way to induce states to establish their own exchanges. This is what Jonathan Gruber famously said.

If I understand the import of Kennedy’s questioning, he’s concerned that such a scheme might be unconstitutional. If so, then he might strain to construe the statute as not “coercing” the states to establish exchanges, and therefore not withholding subsidies to residents of states that opt not to have exchanges.

Let’s see, though, how the questioning of the government’s lawyer goes.

UPDATE: The argument that petitioners lack standing to challenge the statute has not gone well. Of note, Justice Sotomayor seemed to reject. This might mean she wants to the Court to rule on the merits because she’s confident now the government will win.

This is all very pearl clutching worthy. Except that Justice Ginsberg fought tooth and nail to get to the “standing” question. More importantly however, this Kennedy argument can be turned upside down and inside out. What does it mean? The conclusion jumping is based on ObamaCare supporter Eric Citron’s initial report. But Citron has another update to his reports which appear to advise pearl clutchers to put down the pearls:

Until we hear how Justice Kennedy questioned the government, the most important news from the morning’s argument is clearly his focus on the potential consequences for states that choose not to establish their own exchanges under the petitioners’ reading of the statute – that is, that citizens of those states would receive no subsidy and no resulting mandate tax penalty. Trained constitutional lawyers will find it noteworthy that his focus here is on the consequence for states as such, and not for their citizens; Kennedy’s concern is about the federal/state balance and his distrust of a reading that puts a gun to the head of states that fail to set up their own exchanges – threatening them with the almost certain destruction of their statewide insurance systems if they do not comply. That concern might be interpreted (as a matter of legal theory) in a few different ways:

That last sentence is the key. This can be interpreted (until we hear how the rest of the argument goes or we read the transcripts or hear the audio to be released on Friday) in several ways:

Justice Kennedy might believe that Congress would not have intended to set up such a dubious system; he might believe that this reading is required but actually unconstitutional (so that he would strike down the statute’s condition that subsidies apply only to exchanges established by the state); or – perhaps most likely – he might believe that the statute should be interpreted so as to avoid the “serious constitutional problem” he identified. [snip]

He seemed to realize that state legislators would be in an impossible position under that reading – more or less forced to “adopt” or “endorse” the ACA system in order to avoid unmanageable consequences in their states. His plausible conclusion was that Congress either did not intend to put them to that choice, or that the statute shouldn’t be read to have done so, because that’s not typically how our constitutional system works. Instead, the federal government makes and administers federal laws without forcing the states to do some of the work for them. Kennedy seemed to be thinking that this provision should be read more like the typical case, and rather unlike the kind of unusual provision the petitioners suggested.

We have an alternate view which fits all the facts: Justice Kennedy thinks the whole ObamaCare systems sucks. The attempt by the government to force states to establish ObamaCare exchanges sucks (and is unconstitutional as he voted in the first ObamaCare case). Justice Kennedy appears to think that whether Congress intended or did not intend to screw the states the bottom line is the ObamaCare law screws the states and the law sucks.

Bottom line: Justice Kennedy wants to take the gun out of the hands of the federal government. How he will come up with a plan to do so might be the same way he decided in the first ObamaCare case: Dump ObamaCare root, trunk, and branch.

—————————————————————————

At 10:00 today the Supreme Court hears arguments in King v. Burwell. We have written a lot about this line of cases. If you want to drown in detail on this case read our previous articles: ObamaCare Chess: Supreme Court Moves To Checkmate King, HalBIG and other ObamaCare Hilarities, How Big??? ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber #HalBIG, How Big??? #HalBig – Halbig Court Decision On ObamaCare, ObamaCare Halbig Court Decision, ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber On Capitol Hill To Testify With Lies, What To Do About Jonathan Gruber ObamaCare Lies.

As with the first legal challenge to ObamaCare this second attack was initially mocked by Obama and ObamaCare supporters. No longer. The main line of defense for ObamaCare defenders in this case is designed around the reality that this case, like the first case, could thoroughly gut ObamaCare (and Obama) like a sharp knife slicing rotted fish bloated in the sun.

If the challengers win and ObamaCare is implemented as written then the overwhelming majority of ObamaCare registrants would no longer get subsidies for their coverage and they would have to pay the huge bills and the ObamaCare contraption would fall apart. It would be like prisoners in an expensive jail who have to pay for their own long-term incarceration. At some point the prisoners just want to be set free. And some prisoners already want to be set free:

Dear @CoveredCA – you’ve turned a staunch supporter of #Obamacare into an opponent. Id rather die broke than have to go thru your exchange. [snip]

[A]s of today I’ve stopped making excuses for you and this system. It’s time to get your shit together. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have foregone insurance and taken the tax penalty. In fact, I’d rather be dead and broke than have to participate in Covered California’s health care exchange. [snip]

It saddens me to say this, but I no longer believe that the government should mandate health care. It’s not because I’ve abandoned the basic principles behind health care reform. Quite the contrary. But a great idea, is just an idea, if you can’t execute. And the government has proven time and time again, it can’t execute.

The problems that dupe encountered are in a sense the genesis of the ObamaCare case in the Supreme Court today. It’s not so much that the Obama government was totally incompetent (which it was extraordinarily so). The real problem is that the law as written and as intended to be written was and is a complete and total mess that can never work.

That the ObamaCare law is a total mess that can never work is what is at play here. Let’s repeat that: THE OBAMACARE LAW IS A TOTAL MESS THAT CAN NEVER WORK is what is at play here.



The ObamaCare law as intended and as written was a total mess. What happened then is that Obama elves tried to make the mess work. The contortions Obama elves put themselves through to get the ObamaCare mess to work got many of them in trouble.

The big contortion of the elves was to essentially try to rewrite the law at the morgue of compassion and logic – the IRS. The elves discovered the ObamaCare screws were not an incline plane wrapped helically around an axis but rather large square “screws” attempting to fit tiny triangular “nuts”. The contraption was designed so badly that it would not work no matter what they did so they continued to change and rebuild until little recognizable was left of the original design.

What did these elves do? They decided to ignore the law’s restriction that subsidies only be provided to those in states that established an ObamaCare exchange, and instead, of their own accord, give subsidies regardless of whether or not, as required by the law, the individual states had established an ObamaCare exchange.

The reason the law was written with such a foolish restriction was that without such a foolish restriction (1) there would not have been enough votes to pass ObamaCare in the Senate; and (2) the “penalty” of not having subsides would force the individual states to establish ObamaCare exchanges. Here’s one of the ObamaCare elves explaining further:

Most observers of the legal battle over Obamacare’s subsidies are now familiar with the two clips (one video and one audio) in which economist Jonathan Gruber takes the plaintiff’s side, saying only states which set up an exchange will receive subsidies. But a third example of Gruber saying much the same thing has, so far, received very little attention. [snip]

Here is what Gruber said in a March 2013 interview with Employee Benefit Adviser magazine:

I think the piece that isn’t going so well is the next step with states. A number of states have done a great job and are getting ready to go for 2014. But a lot of states are uncertain and there are other states that are, unfortunately, playing a terrible political game at the cost of their state residents in not developing exchanges.

What was that “terrible political game” Again, Gruber the Obama elf:

Through a political compromise, the decision was made that states should play a critical role in running these health insurance exchanges. And the health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of this reform, because they are the place that individuals can go to shop for their new, securely priced health insurance. But if they’re not set up in a way which is transparent, and which is convenient for shoppers, and which allows people to take their tax credits, and use them to effectively buy health insurance, it will undercut the whole purpose of the bill. Now a number of states have expressed no instance in doing so. [snip]

It’s been a leader in setting up its exchange. It’s a great example. But California is rare. Only about 10 states have moved forward aggressively in setting up their exchanges. A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort, that they don’t support health reform.

I guess I’m enough of a believer in democracy to think that—when the voters in states see that by not setting up an exchange, the politicians of the state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars—that they’ll eventually throw the guys out, but I don’t know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat is will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens. So that’s the other threat is will states do what they need to to set it up.

That “enough of a believer in democracy” thought he could impose his will on the citizenry by diktat. Obama’s Elf Gruber thought that California was “a leader” in the ObamaCare dream but that woman we quoted from earlier appears to disagree. It was a bad law badly written and now the diseased chickens are coming home to roost.

ObamaCare elves of course deride and attack those that are so brutal “they don’t support health reform”. But what is “health reform” to some is the disease to others. That’s another big part of the defense at the Supreme Court today:

Even if the text of the law is not perfectly crystal clear, the Obama administration plans to argue, the federal agencies should receive deference to sort out details and ambiguities. [snip]

However, opponents of the law say it would be a mistake to let an agency decide to offer tax credits, which affect tax refunds and equate to direct payments out of the U.S. Treasury.

Decisions of a certain magnitude are not the sort of thing that Congress would delegate to an agency,” Adler said. “It would really be quite something to conclude that Congress had delegated the decision whether to offer tax credits to the IRS.”

It’s not just “tax credits” though. If the ObamaCare subsidies are permitted everywhere regardless of what the law as written says then everyone in every state must comply with the dictates of the law even if effects them adversely. This means that, as the challengers claim, because of the perversity of the IRS interpretation of the law they too will be forced to participate in ObamaCare.

That perversity is what sparked this latest challenge to ObamaCare:

But Congress does not have the power to make the states set up exchanges, so the ACA also instructs the federal government to step in and set one up if a state declines to do so – as thirty-four states eventually did. The exchanges are where the subsidies come in: the ACA provides that you only get the subsidies if you buy your health insurance through an exchange. The federal government reads the ACA to allow subsidies whenever someone buys health insurance on any exchange, whether it’s set up by the federal government or a state.

The challengers in King disagree. They point to the fact that in announcing the formula used to calculate the amount of the subsidies, the Act refers to “an Exchange established by the State.” So, they contend, the subsidies are not available to people who purchase their health insurance through an exchange operated by the federal government.

In 2014, over five million people bought health insurance on exchanges created by the federal government. One of those people was David King, a sixty-four-year-old Vietnam veteran who lives in Virginia and works as a limo driver. Based on his annual income of $39,000, King can purchase a health insurance plan with a monthly premium of $648 for just $275; the other $373 is covered by a subsidy. But King doesn’t want that subsidy. In fact, he doesn’t want to have to buy health insurance at all. And without the subsidy, he wouldn’t have to, because the health insurance would cost him enough that he would qualify for an exemption from the individual mandate.

King and three other Virginia residents filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s interpretation of the ACA as allowing subsidies for anyone who purchases health insurance on an exchange. The lower federal courts rejected their argument, but in November the Justices agreed to weigh in.

In their briefs at the Supreme Court, the challengers say that their argument is so simple that anyone who speaks English can understand it. The text of the ACA directs states to create an exchange. If they don’t, the federal government steps in and creates one itself. But Congress made clear that subsidies are only available for coverage that is “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State” – and the federal government is not a state. If Congress had wanted subsidies to be available no matter who sets up the exchange, it could have said so, and it certainly wouldn’t have specifically indicated that subsidies would be available only for coverage obtained through exchanges “established by the State.” And reading the ACA to make subsidies available only for insurance purchased through state exchanges, they add, is consistent with what Congress intended because it gives states a strong incentive to create the exchanges in the first place.

When Missouri citizens “specifically voted not to set up a state exchange” there was “public awareness” that therefore the citizens of Missouri would not receive subsidies. The initiative still passed. Somehow ObamaCare defenders today at the Supreme Court will try to argue otherwise.

The arguments at the Supreme Court will conclude this afternoon and we will have updates as to what happened.

Share

144 thoughts on “ObamaCare At Supreme Court Again

  1. Thanks again Admin for pointing out the details of what the Supreme’s will decide on today.

    Obama’s elfs are as competent as their master.

  2. I have a question re grading emails. Did Lois Lerner use a private email address? Or a government IRS email address? 😉

  3. It might end up coming down to semantics, like how each side defines the word “State.” Roberts might try to weasel out of finding for the plaintiffs by claiming that capitalizing the word state makes it refer to the federal government. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but I would not put anything above what Obama’s minions would try in order to preserve and protect that piece of turd that Obama and Pelosi gave birth to.

  4. not to go off track but…O and The Dims put the stake into the heart of Ocare by forcing this thru with their reconciliation coup…with not the support of one single repub

    just like everything else O does…and has now indoctrinated the Democratic party to behave…just forced it thru…except for the devious creators, many had no idea what was in it or how it would actually effect real people…

    many, many broken promises, fraud really…loss of doctors, hospitals, rural communities without services, etc, etc, etc

    and now, as we have been warning for a long time…now…the chickens have come home to roost because it is hitting people in their pockets…and their long waited for and expected “tax returns”…now people understand their health care is tied to the IRS and their money…their freedom of health care choice having been stripped from them for the rest of their lives…and only to get more and more expensive year after year…long after O is gone…

    and significantly as I heard one man complain this am on Washington Journal/Cspan where a woman from the insurance companies was trying to explain things and the effects of Ocare…

    bottom line…he said…I had insurance I liked and could afford…that was taken away from me because of Ocare…now he had to comply with what Ocare requires…maternity, etc…the result was his costs have gone way up…

    …and he, in fact, is paying for the subsidies that are being given out to all these others…his costs went up, continue to go up, to pay for them…

    …and another call that confirms that many illegal immigrants that even though they are not supposed to get Ocare…have found the loopholes and many are getting it…

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

    another case of O just trying to rule like a king as he is now trying to do with his amnesty deal…he says he could not wait any longer but did not even try with a brand new congress…

    …everything is a “distraction” “nothing new” or, his favorite “a political stunt”
    when O is not getting what he wants…his ‘dismissiveness’ shows his hand…

  5. Not only was the state established exchange system set up to “extort” states into paying for it and assuming all financial and political responsibility for failures, the Medicaid trap was laid which offered more Medicaid funding to states (which could and has been snatched away with trickery and legalisms) and a severe penalty (struck down by the Supreme Court in the prior Obamacare decision) that then current Medicaid funding would be taken away without full obeisance to the Obamacare masters. It was all stick and very little carrot which the states had no problem saying no thanks after careful review. This is never mentioned in current coverage by the media and I have hopes the Supreme Court will remember it by reviewing the prior decision and arguments.

  6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978794/High-court-takes-major-fight-health-law-subsidies.html

    Swing vote on Supreme Court says striking down Obamacare subsidies could cause a ‘death spiral’ for health insurance exchanges as justices hear arguments in Affordable Care Act challenge

    Justice Anthony Kennedy said state insurance exchanges could collapse without federal subsidies to offset the costs of insurance

    Supreme Court heard an hour of oral arguments in an Obamacare challenge, will cast votes Friday, and release a decision this summer

    Conservatives say law was written to deny subsidies to people in states that decided not to set up their own insurance marketplaces

    The White House insists Congress meant to treat everyone equally

    As many as 8 million people could lose their insurance without the subsidies, which lower the cost of insurance

    GOP wants to replace subsidies with temporary financial assistance, and then new state-based systems they say would be more competitive

    snip

  7. Update: The tea-leaf reading has already begun and most of it is uninformed. First, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg tried to demolish the case with a fierce attack on the standing of the plaintiffs. She failed.

    But the most controversy, or rather pearl clutching, thus far regards a question and argument Justice Kennedy advanced. Ann Althouse is clutching pearls and declaring all is lost and that Kennedy will vote with the government. Wisely, she advises herself to read the entire transcript once it is released before jumping to pearl clutching. The smart Powerline is discouraged too. All of this pearl clutching jumps to conclusion are based on an early mid-argument report from an ObamaCare supporter at the usually good SCOTUSblog. This is the much too early assessment, via Powerline:

    Eric Citron at Scotusblog provides a mid-argument report on King v. Burwell, the vital Obamacare case being heard by the Supreme Court today. According to Citron, the petitioners, who argue that subsidies are not available on the federal exchange faced a troubling question from Justice Kennedy, on whose vote the case may very well turn.

    Kennedy, says Citron, “expressed deep concern with a system where the statute would potentially destroy the insurance system in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges – likening this to an unconstitutional form of federal coercion.” Recall that part of the argument in favor of the view that subsidies aren’t available on the federal exchange is the idea that Congress set up Obamacare this way to induce states to establish their own exchanges. This is what Jonathan Gruber famously said.

    If I understand the import of Kennedy’s questioning, he’s concerned that such a scheme might be unconstitutional. If so, then he might strain to construe the statute as not “coercing” the states to establish exchanges, and therefore not withholding subsidies to residents of states that opt not to have exchanges.

    Let’s see, though, how the questioning of the government’s lawyer goes.

    UPDATE: The argument that petitioners lack standing to challenge the statute has not gone well. Of note, Justice Sotomayor seemed to reject. This might mean she wants to the Court to rule on the merits because she’s confident now the government will win.

    This is all very pearl clutching worthy. Except that Justice Ginsberg fought tooth and nail to get to the “standing” question. More importantly however, this Kennedy argument can be turned upside down and inside out. What does it mean? The conclusion jumping is based on ObamaCare supporter Eric Citron’s initial report. But Citron has another update to his reports which appear to advise pearl clutchers to put down the pearls:

    Until we hear how Justice Kennedy questioned the government, the most important news from the morning’s argument is clearly his focus on the potential consequences for states that choose not to establish their own exchanges under the petitioners’ reading of the statute – that is, that citizens of those states would receive no subsidy and no resulting mandate tax penalty. Trained constitutional lawyers will find it noteworthy that his focus here is on the consequence for states as such, and not for their citizens; Kennedy’s concern is about the federal/state balance and his distrust of a reading that puts a gun to the head of states that fail to set up their own exchanges – threatening them with the almost certain destruction of their statewide insurance systems if they do not comply. That concern might be interpreted (as a matter of legal theory) in a few different ways:

    That last sentence is the key. This can be interpreted (until we hear how the rest of the argument goes or we read the transcripts or hear the audio to be released on Friday) in several ways:

    Justice Kennedy might believe that Congress would not have intended to set up such a dubious system; he might believe that this reading is required but actually unconstitutional (so that he would strike down the statute’s condition that subsidies apply only to exchanges established by the state); or – perhaps most likely – he might believe that the statute should be interpreted so as to avoid the “serious constitutional problem” he identified. [snip]

    He seemed to realize that state legislators would be in an impossible position under that reading – more or less forced to “adopt” or “endorse” the ACA system in order to avoid unmanageable consequences in their states. His plausible conclusion was that Congress either did not intend to put them to that choice, or that the statute shouldn’t be read to have done so, because that’s not typically how our constitutional system works. Instead, the federal government makes and administers federal laws without forcing the states to do some of the work for them. Kennedy seemed to be thinking that this provision should be read more like the typical case, and rather unlike the kind of unusual provision the petitioners suggested.

    We have an alternate view which fits all the facts: Justice Kennedy thinks the whole ObamaCare systems sucks. The attempt by the government to force states to establish ObamaCare exchanges sucks (and is unconstitutional as he voted in the first ObamaCare case). Justice Kennedy appears to think that whether Congress intended or did not intend to screw the states the bottom line is the ObamaCare law screws the states and the law sucks.

    Bottom line: Justice Kennedy wants to take the gun out of the hands of the federal government. How he will come up with a plan to do so might be the same way he decided in the first ObamaCare case: Dump ObamaCare root, trunk, and branch.

    —————————————————————————

  8. @Shadowfax These are not elfs, they are malignant goblins.

    @S The only ones winning at this obamagivesusgarbage are the insurers. They are not and will not lose. They are making money and there is no loss for them. The ones losing are those who signed up for crapcare and the physicians who are following their calling by taking pennies on the dollar to care for those signed up. Zero’s legacy shall be one of a biblical sized mess at home and abroad.

  9. I will say it again. If this garbage that was forced upon the citizens of this country was so fabulous, why did Zero and the gang keep the federal insurance?

  10. mcnorman

    March 4, 2015 at 1:08 pm

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

    agree…and the drug companies…there have been all sorts of rumblings in the news lately that drug costs are set to skyrocket…and that insurance won’t be covering it….

    ***********

    I hope Admin is right and Kennedy sees how bad Ocare is…and the bill of goods sold was not what people got…and chucks it…

    and sends everyone back to the drawing board with lessons learned…

  11. Update II: More information is in and it appears that our view in our first update is gaining support from the new reports of what happened/is happening today at the Supreme Court:

    Chief Justice John Roberts said almost nothing in nearly 90 minutes of back-and-forth, and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s questions did not make clear how he will come out. Roberts was the decisive vote to uphold the law in 2012. [snip]

    It may not be the statute Congress intended, but it may be the statute Congress wrote,” Scalia said of the provision in question. [snip]

    Kennedy voted to strike down the health law in 2012, but on Wednesday he asked questions of both sides that made it hard to tell where he might come out this time.

    He suggested that challenger Carvin’s argument raised a “serious” constitutional problem affecting the relationship between states and the federal government.

    On the other hand, he seemed less than convinced by Verrilli’s reading of the law to allow the subsidies nationwide.

    Justice Kennedy knows ObamaCare sucks and is unconstitutional. Any Obama and/or ObamaCare supporter who takes any solace in what Kennedy asked (see our first update) should also consider the consequences of his state/federal arguments and what that could mean when the immigration case from Texas crawls up the ladder.

    ————————————————————————-

  12. @S
    I pray that this cancer is stripped. I know that it will not be easy for anyone who had to sign up for this junk to forgo care. Truth be told, I’m seeing a lot of docs forgo the insurance for straight up 1950s cash pay. They can run leaner and smoother without all of the frills that have been mandated. They can’t keep up with the ever changing stupidity of zero’s legacy. It’s wrong to have worked so long and hard to care for people only to be turned into a computer scribe checking boxes like Pavlov’s dog.

    What people fail to understand about ACA is that this is junk and no amount of help will make this work for the betterment of anyone. Unless you are on the other side of the counter, you just don’t know how badly you are getting screwed. The bottom line is that everyone will pay more for garbage.

  13. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/04/irs-says-it-needs-490-million-more-to-implement-obamacare/

    IRS Says It Needs $490 Million More to Implement Obamacare

    The IRS on Tuesday told Congress it would like an additional $490.4 million in the next fiscal year to implement the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare.

    “This additional funding, the majority of which is for required information technology upgrades, will allow the IRS to increase efforts to ensure compliance with a number of tax-related provisions of the ACA, including the premium tax credit and individual shared responsibility provision,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in prepared remarks to a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday. “The funding will provide enhanced technology infrastructure and applications support, and allow necessary, major modifications to existing IRS tax administration systems.”

  14. “The bottom line is that everyone will pay more for garbage.”
    ***
    The bottom line is that AHA was never economically viable and even before it became law, the bean counters predicted it would implode by 2020. The drug and insurance companies are making a financial killing but the big question is what comes next?

  15. For those not really interested in following our obsession with legal arguments on ObamaCare, we offer this:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-115715.html?hp=t4_r#.VPdZD-El3cv

    What if Hillary Bows Out?

    Here’s how it would play out in the Democratic Party—after the initial panic.

    There’s also this thinly disguised “concern” article which is basically a pro-Warren plea from New Republic (owned by Obama bootlicker Chris Hughes):

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121208/hillary-clintons-email-use-shows-shes-unprepared-election

    Who knows what other past mistakes might surface, or ones yet to come? It hasn’t taken much digging from journalists to find these stories. Republican opposition researchers are surely going into overdrive now that they smell blood in the water.

    The best way for a party to vet a candidate, and get all of the dirt out of the way, is in a primary. But the Democratic Party is not going to have a competitive primary. At best, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Senator Jim Webb will be her challengers. That’s not a particularly tough primary.

    The wild card is Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, whom liberals have long wanted to run for president. Warren has basically ruled out a presidential run. She has made no moves to indicate she is considering one. But as she sees Clinton struggle before even hitting the campaign trail, Warren—and other party leaders—has to be thinking about it more every day. She probably wouldn’t win, but it would still make for a far more competitive primary, take some of the heat and press coverage off Hillary, and make her a far more battle-tested candidate for the general election. That’s exactly what the Democratic Party needs.

  16. I think Roberts is quite because he already knows which way the wind blows…they must have something big on him that he would sacrifice his Legacy, the American people,and our beloved Constitution to keep AxelRod, rat man, and the rest of the fraud thugs from exposing him.

  17. Love the legal argument’s Admin…just terrified 5/4 obama…He seems to get anything he wants, from Republican Congress to the Supreme Court…I just don’t get it.

  18. Admin: I think you are right about Kennedy.

    He was the one who the conservative faction sent in to talk Roberts off the ledge on his decision to side with the Obamaites on the court. He has seen what WSJ reported this morning about how the dive Roberts took has affected his standing with conservatives. And he has a respect for federalism, and is not persuaded by the Obamites on the court who believe in the unitary executive. The smart solution would be to toss this grenade back into the lap of Leader Mitch the Bitch McConnell, and watch him squeal, and have to figure out a way to support Obama without appearing to support Obama. More to that melodrama to come.

  19. Verrilli’s–a Hollywood guy, is not a very effective Solicitor General. He was the one who told the court that Obamacare was not a tax, before deer in the headlights Roberts ruled that it was. So today, Roberts sits there like a bump on a long—breathes there a man with soul so dead that never to himself has said, this is my Constitution and my role is to preserve it.

  20. Just remember one thing: Mitch wants to get big Pharma back under the Republican tent, and that is the determining factor if the court tosses this thing into his lap. Good old Mitch. A credit to the tortoise specie.

  21. There’s also this thinly disguised “concern” article which is basically a pro-Warren plea from New Republic (owned by Obama bootlicker Chris Hughes)—saying Hillary needs a sparring partner–preferably Warren. So I asked myself who is this Delphic Oracle?
    ———-

    When he bought the magazine in 2012 at the age of 28, the Facebook co-founder pledged to “double down” on “in-depth, rigorous reporting,” telling NPR that “the demand for long-form, quality journalism is strong in our country.”

    But after just two years, Hughes decided that saving long-form journalism was just too hard. He declared that the 100-year-old journal of opinion would become a technology company, and he brought in a new CEO who literally proposed that writers team up with engineers to make “widgets” for TNR’s Web site.

  22. gonzotx
    March 4, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    I think Roberts is quite because he already knows which way the wind blows…they must have something big on him that he would sacrifice his Legacy, the American people,and our beloved Constitution to keep AxelRod, rat man, and the rest of the fraud thugs from exposing him.

    ——–

    Let us hope this isn’t true.

    I think it is more a question of character–or the lack thereof.

    But if it is true, and if it can be proven, then to the hoosegow he will go.

    There is a precedent for this:

    It involves Judge Marvin Manton who sat on the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and was almost appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Wilson to fill what was then described as the ‘catholic seat’.

    Judge Manton suffered severe financial reverses during the Great Depression and began to accept gifts and loans from persons having business before his court, some of which constituted outright bribes for selling his vote in pending patent litigations. Rumors of corruption spread and in 1939, Manton resigned under pressure of investigations by Manhattan District Attorney Thomas E. Dewey, who wrote a letter to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee recommending impeachment proceedings, and by a federal grand jury.

    Following his resignation, Manton was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York where he once sat as a judge. The government was represented at trial by John T. Cahill, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Assistant United States Attorneys, Mathias F. Correa, Jerome Doyle, Frank H. Gordon and Silvio J. Mollo. Honorable William Calvin Chestnut of the District of Maryland presided over the jury trial at which Manton called former Democratic Presidential candidates Alfred Smith and John W. Davis as character witnesses. Manton became the first federal judge convicted of accepting bribes.

    Manton’s conviction was affirmed by a specially constituted Second Circuit panel consisting of retired Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland, Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, and newly appointed Second Circuit Judge Charles Edward Clark.[5] Manton was sentenced to two years in Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary and served 17 months.

  23. My favorite professor in law school, who finished first in his class at University of Chicago Law School, and who unlike Jessee Choper turned down a offer to clerk for Earl Warren loved to regale us with the story of Marvin Manton. That is the only reason I happened to think of it. I just do not see blackmail here–EXCEPT the threat to smear Robert’s reputation by Obamaites–and NYT. I think he is an image conscious vain man, and a RINO.

  24. GonzoTx, Wbboei, we’re reading the transcript and for those so inclined it is a fun read. As we read we see several things that have not been commented on or have been viewed not as we would view them.

    First, Justice Roberts. Roberts is not as silent as reports indicate. It’s true that Roberts did not make a sustained substantive line of questioning. But Roberts comes to the rescue of Carvin several times At one point he humorously chides all the questions launched against Carvin by the liberal Justices as not giving Carvin sufficient time to speak. Roberts therefore extends the time allotted to Carvin by 10 minutes.

    Second Alito. By far the most helpful Justice to Carvin. Alito understands the arguments very well and gives Carvin a lifeline when Justice Kagen leads Carvin down an unproductive path towards contextualism. Alito then scores big when he targets Verilli to clean up the questions raised by Justice Kennedy that have been so much discussed today. Alito is at his best by asking the obvious. Alito asked the most obvious question: “If Congress did not want the phrase “established by the State” to mean what that would normally be taken to mean, why did they use that language?”

    Third Justice Kennedy. Much has been made of Kennedy’s federal/state arguments. Alito clarified much of that line of reasoning and with his question (which we cite above) Kennedy follows up and asks Verilli “So you’re saying that by cross­reference to 1311, they really mean 1311 and 1321?” It’s a crucial point because this would make 1321 pointless. Kennedy’s strongest exchange came on the question of authority. “But it seems to me a drastic step for us to say that the Department of Internal Revenue and its director can make this call one way or the other when there are, what, billions of dollars of subsidies involved here? Hundreds of millions?” “And it ­­ it seems to me our cases say that if the Internal Revenue Service is going to allow deductions using these, that it has to be very, very clear.” “And it ­­ it seems to me a little odd that the director of Internal Revenue didn’t ­­ didn’t identify this problem if it’s ambiguous and advise Congress it was.” [At this point in the argument Chief Justice Roberts sticks the dagger in “If you’re right ­­if you’re right about Chevron, that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation?” to which Verilli puts himself into a jam with Alito’s follow-up as Justice Sotomayor tries to rescue Verilli, but fails to do so.]

    Fourth Scalia: “How can the government ­­ Federal government establish a State Exchange? That is gobbledygook.”

  25. JW: ‘Obama administration may have misled and lied about Clinton emails’
    …Fitton said, “As with what happened when Judicial Watch forced the disclosure of the ‘missing’ IRS emails, I am convinced that these emails would never have been disclosed….
    http://www.examiner.com/article/jw-obama-administration-may-have-misled-and-lied-about-clinton-emails

    dcexaminer seems to have an aggressive anti-copy mechanism protecting their stuff. After many tries, I settled for the little bit given here. The whole piece is not substantial. At least someone is on Hillary’s side. Last night on TV at dinner time, it never failed that “her” email story was given on the coattails of Obama on Netanyahu.

  26. Just readin’ and waitin’. Guess I should be prayin’ too. But what with Obama confusing himself with God and all – I don’t want to take a chance on my prayer going to the wrong one.

    Admin thanks for the info and for your valuable, impeccable insight.

  27. Seems to me, the battle is not only with health care and amnesty, but will the Supremes let deflection, mandates, executive POWER, and crack-pot bill writing undermine our Constitution?

  28. IRS Says It Needs $490 Million More to Implement Obamacare

    ——–
    WTF are these idiots talking about, $490 million dollars to fix the infrastructure for the IRS!!

    Why doesn’t Obama just ask us to turn over all citizens assets to the IRA, and sell off our first born to the highest bidder?

    It doesn’t cost a few million dollars to create a tech infrastructure…the money is going to something else. I guaranFuckingtee you it is.

  29. The drug and insurance companies are making a financial killing but the big question is what comes next?

    ——-
    A lot of dead Americans!

  30. From Correct The Record regarding the non-issue of Hillary’s emails

    (snip):

    “Gowdy and his Republican-led committee spent $1.8 million last year alone, and the great revelation those resources discovered? Hillary Clinton’s emails, which were turned over to the State Department in transparent fashion – 55,000 pages worth – came from a personal account rather than a federal account. Nothing was hidden, and thanks to millions of dollars in federal investigations, we now know concretely that Hillary Clinton, following precedent, used a personal email address just as Secretaries of State before her did. If following the standard protocols of your predecessors is itself news, then it would have been two years ago when first reported, long before the Republican political exercise over Benghazi.

    Media coverage of Clinton’s email practices included accusations that Clinton may have potentially violated a recently enacted federal law pertaining to emails. In reality, this law did not even exist when Clinton was Secretary of State. In fact, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 did not become law until November 26, 2014.”

    (snip)

    http://correctrecord.org/benghazi-hoax-continues-with-manufactured-controversy-over-emails/

  31. freespirit
    March 4, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    Such a big deal was/is made on Hillary’s emails…just like all the other tidbits that are made into mountain ranges.

    These aHoles are so out to destroy Hillary, their lack of judgement is showing.

    A woman, Hillary as President…that really has men scared $hitless.

  32. The right wingers at Drudge and Breitbart are really showing their desperation trying to manufacture a new controversy in the hope that the public will buy into their narrative and force HRC to decide not to run. Staying out of the public eye and letting surrogates deal with these controversies does seem to be the wiser strategy. Let the far right expend their ammunition against her early in the game and wear themselves out.

  33. Update III: Kennedy rules the day. Nervous Nellies, Pearl Clutchers, rule the day – as we noted in our first update. The question of the day? We’ll go with door number 3. Supreme Court oral argument: Kennedy leaning towards White House’s view on ObamaCare subsidies?:

    The third option open to Kennedy is the trickiest. What if he decides that “established by a State” isn’t unclear, that the plaintiffs are obviously right that “State” means the states only, not the federal government — but that, per the federalism/coercion reasoning of those 1990s cases, that means the statute is … unconstitutional? What happens to the statute then? Is the entire subsidies scheme, not just for federal customers but for state customers, now illegal? That would be an even bigger disaster for the White House than they’re expecting.

    Quo Vadis Kennedy? “But Kennedy added that the challengers may win anyway based on the plain meaning of the provision at issue.” In the comments we’ve followed up on what we think happened today. Rest assured, it will get worse. The IRS wants $490 million more to implement ObamaCare. Will Boner and House Republicans cave and give Obama/ObamaCare more money?

    ——————————————-

  34. admin
    March 4, 2015 at 4:42 pm
    “Will Boner and House Republicans cave and give Obama/ObamaCare more money?”
    —————————
    They’ve always followed a consistent pattern of appeasement to Obama, so the answer is, why yes!

  35. Yeah, Michael Brown was a thug. Darryl Wilson was victimized by the race-baiters:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/darren-wilson-is-cleared-of-rights-violations-in-ferguson-shooting.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

    The Justice Department has cleared a Ferguson, Mo., police officer of civil rights violations in the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager whose death set off racially charged and sometimes violent protests last year. [snip]

    But federal agents and civil rights prosecutors rejected that story, just as a state grand jury did in November. The Justice Department said forensic evidence and other witnesses backed up the account of Officer Wilson, who said Mr. Brown fought with him, reached for his gun, then charged at him. He told investigators that he feared for his life.

    “There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson’s stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,” the report said.

    The report found that witnesses who claimed that Mr. Brown was surrendering were not credible. “Some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witnesses’ own prior statements with no explanation,” it said.

    “Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and ‘charging’ at Wilson,” it added.

    “Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts.”

    The report is devastating for the Michael Brown supporters. The witnesses who supported Brown are proven liars. “Pants up, don’t loot.”

  36. But racist AG Holder is going to file charges against Ferguson. ..for writing too many traffic tickets to black people!
    Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel Holder.

  37. More Street theater: “Perils of Pauline” episode 35 or 42 or ???

    Gutless Roberts will come up with some convoluted legal logic that the way that the section under dispute is un-Constitutional as written but was corrected by the implementation of the PPAHCA; no harm…no foul.

  38. S, what a weird attack. I swear, it’s time for peace and sanity to break out. Chaos everywhere.

  39. Well, the GOP can blame Kerry this time for failing to protect his ambassadors. On second thought, they’ll find a way to blame it on Hillary too.

  40. Hillary is top bill on Drudge.

    Beautiful photo

    Slime mode text:

    “HILLARY’S SECRET: DEMS KEEP DISTANCE
    YEARN FOR ALTERNATIVE”

    Have they been hoping for Featherhead to get the primary nod, so ol’ Jeb has a chance of winning??

    I think so…

  41. Yes, indeed, sliming Hillary so Jeb can win. Smells like Rove/Axlerod involvement doesn’t it?

  42. Pants up, don’t loot.
    —–
    Nice turn of a phrase admin.

    True wit
    Is nature to advantage dressed
    What oft was thought
    But ner so well expressed———-Alexander Pope.

  43. Like Bill O’ I am a simple man
    Why not say to congress
    We are not in the business of overruling congress
    But if congress wrote a bill they cannot live with
    Don’t look to us to save you

    Then, toss that steaming turd into the laps of McConnell and Boehner
    Who promised their voters they would stop Obamacare
    And promised their donors they would see that it was not stopped.
    Boehner would have to invite Bibi back again for an encore performance
    So everyone was sufficiently distracted before they caved.

  44. Boehner–here’s laughing at you pal
    McConnell–we now know why tortises are an endangered specie.

  45. Its the sign of the times . . . .

    World leaders believe the United States has no president. It is only within the beltway and big media that the illusion still exists. It is very much like the Wizard of Oz. Adversaries laugh at Obama and kick sand in his face at will. Allies see there is no there there and are peeling a way country by county by country. It is all very very surreal. So is the fact that according to Rassmussen 48% of the public approval of this jackal’s job performance. Here is Richard Rodriguez’s take, which is directly on target.

    “How long can you watch your fighter take it on the chin before you grudgingly admit that he’s a bum? In their own way the media admit the case. When the Beltway press says that America is “still” the most important country on the planet; when talk show hosts re-assure us that the United States is “still” the indispensable country, the “still” betrays the game; it is an adjective used to describe an asset that is wasting away. Nobody who is ascendant assures his listeners that he can “still” pay for his hamburger. But people in long decline use the word frequently and the press has been using it all too often. President Obama is the president of the “still”. Still boasting, still failing and still hoping to land his knockout deal.”
    ————-

    In the universe outside the Beltway nations feel actual fear — of China, Russia or Iran – as the case may be. Germany, France, the UK, Japan and Australia need to survive and require more than dramatic poses from the lectern. In the absence of something more substantial they tend to make their own arrangements; if need be they conclude a separate peace.

    It’s almost as if there were two parallel universes. The real one in which the rest of the world lives and the fantasy land bounded by the Beltway and the media capitals. Perhaps American allies of long standing are starting to suspect that there is no president in the White House. To be sure there is someone who calls himself ‘president’ and never ceases to remind the public at large of his awesome magnificence. Yet in actuality there is little concrete evidence of his majesty’s existence. For example after trumpeting an impending assault on Mosul, the Associated Press for example notes that the “US [is] on [the] sidelines of key Iraqi battle against IS”.

    Glaringly absent are the U.S.-led coalition forces whose air campaign since last summer has nearly halted the Islamic State rampage across Iraq. Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said this week that the U.S. is not providing air power in the Tikrit operation “simply because the Iraqis haven’t requested us to.” …

    However, more of a concern for the U.S.-led coalition is Iran’s prominent role in the fight against the Islamic State militants. Iran has long been influential in Iraq, but never so much so as over the past year, when the Iraqi military collapsed in the face of the Sunni extremists’ onslaught. Iraqi officials have noted Iran’s quick response to their urgent requests for weapons and frontline assistance even as they accuse the coalition of falling short on commitments on the ground.

    People notice these things. They remember that only a few years ago the US had proconsular power in Iraq. Now it doesn’t even get the time of day. The fact the man in charge operations against ISIS in the region appears to be Qassem Suleimani, chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, must make even the ordinary man start to have his doubts.

    And it’s not just Iraq, but elsewhere. A few years ago the US counted Egypt as its staunch ally. In 2011 Hillary Clinton trumpeted the liberation of Libya. Now Egypt is estranged from America and the consulate in Benghazi charred ruin with its ambassador dead. Only a few months ago the Obama administration touted Yemen as its counterinsurgency model. Yet Yemen, according to Captain Robert A. Newson, a (SEAL) officer who spent time there, was “a fantasy”. “This ‘CT concept’,” he wrote ” – the solution that some people champion where the main or whole effort is drone strikes and special operations raids – is a fantasy. It may be cheaper and safer, but without broader efforts it is like mowing the grass in the jungle.” Today the American embassy in Sana’a has been abandoned to an Iranian-backed militia.

    When Netanyahu enumerated these well-known setbacks Nancy Pelosi declared herself “near tears” at the “insult”. Yet even the president could not dispute the facts. All the president could say was there was “nothing new” in the speech. And in that Obama is undoubtedly right. Readers will note that there was hardly a major point in Netanyahu’s speech that was not anticipated in yesterday’s Belmont Club post (and the comments). But that did not require genius because it’s all so obvious. What’s really astonishing is that none of the undisputed facts seemed to matter to the administration.

    Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

    Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

    Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    How long can you watch your fighter take it on the chin before you grudgingly admit that he’s a bum? In their own way the media admit the case. When the Beltway press says that America is “still” the most important country on the planet; when talk show hosts re-assure us that the United States is “still” the indispensable country, the “still” betrays the game; it is an adjective used to describe an asset that is wasting away. Nobody who is ascendant assures his listeners that he can “still” pay for his hamburger. But people in long decline use the word frequently and the press has been using it all too often. President Obama is the president of the “still”. Still boasting, still failing and still hoping to land his knockout deal.

    Chris Matthews reacted to the prime minister’s speech by accusing Netanyahu of trying to “wrest power from Obama”. Matthews said:

    “This man from a foreign government walked into the United States legislative chamber and tried to take over U.S. foreign policy. He said, ‘You should trust me, not your president on this. I am the man you should trust. I’m your true leader on this question of U.S. geopolitics. To protect yourself, you must listen to me and not to this president.’”

    Would that it were so. Like most mainstream commmentators Matthews still thinks Obama sits in the center of the old universe, the one that is vanishing. From that accustomed vantage Matthews sees everyone as coveting the power of the King from which the cornucopia flows. Matthews cannot see that things have changed. Quite perceptibly the periphery of American influence — even its core — is falling away. And it will keep crumbling away for as long as reason is subordinated to the vanity of political leaders.

    Netanyahu didn’t come there to get something from Obama because he knows the president will give him nothing. And besides the cupboard, truth be told, is probably bare. He came for old time’s sake; with a sadness in his heart that Nancy Pelosi couldn’t even begin to imagine; with the kind of grief that comes from seeing something once beautiful and powerful now broken down and grubbing at the level of the petty, malicious, lying politicians who dominate it. He came to warn anyone who would listen to wake up, though his words were doubtless wasted on the sleeping.

    It would be asking too much for the administration’s supporters to agree with Netanyahu. But perhaps it might be permissible to request that they remember what he said, so that in the coming months, as the disasters unfold and things go ever more wrong, they might cast their minds back and ask: “could he have been right?”

    Ernest Hemingway observed that people who have always had money never believe they’ll run out. In the Sun Also Rises two of his characters describe the experience of going bust.

    “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

    “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

    Like Detroit. And that’s the way it will be for Nancy Pelosi and the whole gang. They’ll be kings of the world until suddenly they’re not.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/04/the-spitefulness-of-little-men/#ixzz3TU1kvvz3

  46. Tony Stark
    March 4, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    The right wingers at Drudge and Breitbart are really showing their desperation trying to manufacture a new controversy in the hope that the public will buy into their narrative and force HRC to decide not to run. Staying out of the public eye and letting surrogates deal with these controversies does seem to be the wiser strategy. Let the far right expend their ammunition against her early in the game and wear themselves out.
    —————————————————————-

    tony – I really feel it’s the far-left wing, with Obama at the helm, steering this narrative.

  47. Hillary gave a smart answer somewhere on TV this morning. Rough paraphrase:
    Why did I not back up my emails?
    I knew the government agencies receiving them would back them up.
    🙂

  48. Chris Matthews reacted to the prime minister’s speech by accusing Netanyahu of trying to “wrest power from Obama”. Matthews said:

    “This man from a foreign government walked into the United States legislative chamber and tried to take over U.S. foreign policy. He said, ‘You should trust me, not your president on this. I am the man you should trust. I’m your true leader on this question of U.S. geopolitics. To protect yourself, you must listen to me and not to this president.’”

    _____________

    Tingles just can’t resist making an idiot of himself. Must have some kind of complex that causes him to self-sabatoge. Whatever the problem, he would be better off if someone glued his lips together with some kind of industrial strength super-glue. Then he wouldn’t say stupid things and we wouldn’t have to hear them.

    Who is the better leader – Obama or Bibi.

    If you need someone to lead a bullshit fest – Obama’s your man.

    If you need someone to make your country safer – Bibi’s the guy for that job.

  49. Interesting. 🙂
    _____________

    Roberts’s one question may turn out to be extremely important. The issue in the case is whether the Obama Administration, in implementing the Affordable Care Act, violated the terms of that law. The plaintiffs assert that the A.C.A. only authorizes subsidies for individuals who buy health insurance on the fourteen state-run exchanges, or marketplaces. Under their reading of the law, the eight million or so people in the other thirty-six states who currently buy their insurance from the federal marketplace should be denied their subsidies. Most of the justices’ questions dealt with the issue of how to read the law correctly, but Roberts, in his single substantive question, took a different tack.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/did-john-roberts-tip-his-hand

  50. wbb,
    1209am post. I went to the link and read the whole article, well written and very depressing, but spot on.

  51. Not much of a news day today, so far…so here is something cool that is way OT

    My dad (RIP) worked for NASA on the space program, I lived on Cape Canaveral for awhile and I am glad Obama hasn’t totally screwed up one of America’s greatest achievements.

    NASA Dawn nears encounter with dwarf planet Ceres

    MIAMI: A NASA spacecraft called Dawn is about to become the first mission to orbit a dwarf planet when it slips into orbit Friday around Ceres, the most massive body in the asteroid belt.

    The mission aims to shed light on the origins of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, from its “rough and tumble environment of the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter,” said mission director Marc Rayman of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

    Already scientists are intrigued by the appearance of two bright spots on Ceres.

    “What are they? At this point, the clearest answer is that the answer is unknown,” Rayman wrote on his blog.

    The dwarf planet, which has an average diameter of 590 miles (950 kilometers), makes a full rotation every nine hours, and NASA is hoping for a wealth of data once the spacecraft’s orbit begins.

    “Dawn is about to make history,” said Robert Mase, project manager for the Dawn mission at NASA JPL in Pasadena, California.

    “Our team is ready and eager to find out what Ceres has in store for us.”

    Experts will be looking for signs of geologic activity, via changes in these bright spots, or other features on Ceres’ surface over time.

    The latest images came from Dawn when it was 25,000 miles (40,000 kilometers) away on February 25.

    This image was taken by NASA’s Dawn spacecraft of dwarf planet Ceres on February 19, 2015 from a distance of nearly 29,000 miles (46,000 kilometers). The Dawn probe en route to Ceres broadcast footage of the smallest dwarf planet in the solar system on which appear two mysterious bright spots .

    The celestial body was first spotted by Sicilian astronomer Father Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801.

    “Ceres was initially classified as a planet and later called an asteroid. In recognition of its planet-like qualities, Ceres was designated a dwarf planet in 2006, along with Pluto and Eris,” NASA said.

    Ceres is named after the Roman goddess of agriculture and harvests.

    The spacecraft on its way to circle it was launched in September 2007.

    First, Dawn explored the giant asteroid Vesta for 14 months in 2011 and 2012, then made its way toward Ceres.

    “This two-stop tour of our solar system is made possible by Dawn’s ion propulsion system, its three ion engines being much more efficient than chemical propulsion,” NASA said.

    The exploration of Vesta and Ceres helps scientists understand how objects form in space.

    “Both Vesta and Ceres were on their way to becoming planets, but their development was interrupted by the gravity of Jupiter,” said Carol Raymond, deputy project scientist at JPL.

    “These two bodies are like fossils from the dawn of the solar system, and they shed light on its origins.”

    Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, said he hopes Dawn will “contribute significant breakthroughs in our understanding of how the solar system formed.”

    NASA has partnered with the German Aerospace Center, Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Italian Space Agency and Italian National Astrophysical Institute on the mission.

    Next year, the US space agency plans to launch its Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) spacecraft, to “study a large asteroid in unprecedented detail and return samples to Earth,” NASA said.

    A couple of photos at: http://arynews.tv/en/nasa-dawn-nears-encounter-dwarf-planet-ceres/

  52. gonzotx
    March 5, 2015 at 11:15 am
    wbb,
    1209am post. I went to the link and read the whole article, well written and very depressing, but spot on.

    ——
    Yes. I know. This is why I value Richard’s insights as much as I do. They run very deep, and instead of the rage that I feel that manifests itself with hostility toward the jackal in the White House and his amen corner in big media he displays a profound sense of melancholy. Both of us see the future slipping away and have no faith in the will and capacity of those in power to do anything about it other than the loot the rest of us in the race to the bottom. No one in congress except for Cruz and Lee, have any grand vision, everything they do centers around the welfare of their donors and for that they will gladly rob their constituents. And as much as I have hoped to find one honest person in big media that well is just as dry–except for Sharyl Attkisson. Even Krauthammer who makes a lot of sense on many issues, is still hamstrung by his inside the beltway perspective which is based on bold faced lies such as the unemployment rate is 5.7%, we are still the indispensable nation and it is bad form to state the obvious that Obama hates this nation. Someone must emerge and chase the money changers from the temple before everything goes to hell. The sad truth is 99% of the political class are just hangers on. And as an old San Francisco lawyer told me in the days I was practicing labor relations don’t be just a hanger on. If you need to do something, don’t just talk about it, do it.

  53. Lol

    Even Rush knows it’s the Left behind the emails…The Left wants One drop and will do whatever it takes…

  54. Shadow,
    How neat to live and be part of the space program. I saw one lift off, really by accident. We were on the beach, took a break from driving to Disney, and BAM… it was so cool, and I must say you do feel a sense of pride just watching..

  55. The Left wants One drop and will do whatever it takes…


    True, and so would the GOP.

    Imagine what fun they would have exposing her attempt to claim Native American heritage for her professional and financial gain.

    Talk about a lack of credibility and endless humor at Featherhead’s expense. The late night show hosts and cartoonists would have a field day.

  56. Rush states that the left wing media are not circling the wagons, are pushing the narrative against Hillary…it’s not the right, it’s the left, as it always has been.

  57. gonzotx
    March 5, 2015 at 1:37 pm


    Yes gonzotx, the pride in America’s achievement as it roars off into the sky, at sun break brings tears to your eyes. I was a young girl at the time and my dad would call and wake us up, he would say, get down to the beach, you have five minutes to lift off.

    I will never forget it.

  58. Oh, the right will take advantage of it, no one in politics is going to let a crisis go to waste, but this came from the left..
    Someone on the left spilled the beans, had the proof.
    Maybe it would be better to send private matters by carrier pigeon.

  59. foxyladi14

    March 5, 2015 at 10:38 am

    Interesting.
    ****************************************************

    I went to the link and admit I did not read it…I glanced at it and noted that it is written by Jeffrey Tobin…

    frankly that spared me the anguish of reading whatever he says…

    Foxy, I am sure you know that Jeff Tobin is one of the biggest lapdogs for O…he is shameful…he will spin like a top for O

    I would be interested in what our professional legal minds, Admin…and Wbboei have to say if they read it…

    …also if anyone finds anything current written by Johnathan Turley on this Ocare case before the supreme court please post here…I will be looking…

    even though Turley leans left, his objectivity is honest

  60. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/04/obama-press-worst-ever-administrations-relationship_n_6794920.html?utm_hp_ref=media

    Obama Administration’s Relationship With Press Among The Worst Ever, Report Shows

    During his first days in the White House, President Barack Obama promised to usher in an era of openness in government, stating that a new commitment to transparency would only serve to “strengthen our democracy.” But now, some seven years later, a new study conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review suggests that relations between the White House and the media have never been so closed off.

    CJR looked at press briefings, conducted interviews with White House press secretaries and correspondents, and studied every official interaction between Obama and the press corps last year, all with the goal of shining a light on the president’s complex relationship with the media. What CJR found was a “White House determined to conceal its workings from the press, and by extension, the public.”

    “[T]he media most responsible for covering the president and his inner sanctum are given little insight into how decisions are made or who influences those decisions, whether from inside or outside the White House,” the study reads. “Evidence suggests that the relationship between the president and the press is more distant than it has been in a half century.”

    For years the media has accused the Obama administration of declaring a war on journalism. Most recently, the government’s combative relationship with the press has been on display in its legal battle with James Risen, a New York Times reporter who refused to testify against a source accused of leaking him classified information.

    In February, Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation,” and said he would spend the rest of his life “fighting to undo damage done to press freedom in the United States by Barack Obama and Eric Holder.”

    But CJR doesn’t let reporters of the hook, either. The study says the press has been held prisoner by the demands of social media, chasing clickable quotes rather than substantive information. The pervasiveness of social media got so out of hand, apparently, that White House press secretary Josh Earnest put an end to off-camera morning meetings in his office because journalists would use the opportunity to tweet every word he said.

    “At press conferences, the overwhelming tendency is to ask about the day’s headline or to look for the ‘gotcha’ question, instead of addressing long-term accountability issues,” the study reads. “Reporters ask questions not to get information, but to get a reaction. And even with that strategy, they rarely succeed.”

  61. btw…just in…Jodi Arias death sentencing trial – hung jury

    now it is up to the judge…Judge Stephens will decide whether to sentence jodi arias to natural life or life w/ chance of release after 25 yrs

    sentencing in April

  62. S, we have not commented or written about net neutrality until now. The reason for our silence is that frankly the topic is irrelevant at this point. To us no matter what happens there will be a law suit. The law suit will be over after Obama is out of office.

    But for those interested in the topic we have read the “left-wing” Electronic Frontier Foundation’s articles on net neutrality ever since this issue became a “thing”.

    The EFF has been a strong supporter of net neutrality: https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

    But a few days before the FCC vote EFF raised a red flag and backed away from the FCC proposals: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

    The EFF wrote a letter to the FCC that should give pause to any supporter of “net neutrality”: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/02/23/14-28_09-191_eff_ex_parte_2.19.15.pdf

    [T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .

    Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.

    “Light touch regulation” with Obama and Obama Dimocrats? Beware.

  63. Obama Administration’s Relationship With Press Among The Worst Ever, Report Shows
    ————
    That is a lie:

    1. They hailed him as a messiah? (yes)

    2. They censored information about his sordid past? (yes)

    3. They called those who questioned him racists? (yes)

    4. They sold us the fairy tale that he was qualified, that he was a post racial and loyal to the American People? (yes)

    5. They abused their roles as moderator in debates? (yes)

    6. They told us their job was to make him successful the day after the election? (yes)

    7. The told their people that they were not outsiders, but insiders in his administration? (yes)

    8. They ran a revolving door between the white house and big media? (yes)

    9. They tolerated a deep conflict of interests, i.e. Rhoades, et al? (yes)

    10. They bottled up investigative reporters who sought to give the truth to the American People? (yes)

    11. They refused to ask him ANY tough questions during press conferences? (yes)

    12 They called the debacle of Obamacare which has destroyed our system the greatest civil rights victory since 1964? (yes)

    13.They savaged any Republican who seeks to stop him through a temporary shutdown of government because it disrupts their world? (yes)

    14.They give a prime time spot to Obama’s ally Sharpton the greatest race baiter of the modern era? (yes)

    12.They eulogize Holder and ignore his serial abuses as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer? (yes)

    13.They bury the scandals of his administration–F&F, IRS, Benghazi? (yes)

    14.They head hunt legitimate jouranlists like Glenn Greenwald who expose the abuses they cover up? (yes)

    15.They celebrated a foreign policy which was certain to destroy American Power, Arab Spring, Apologias, etc. (yes)

    16. They fully supported his Arab Spring and apolgia strategy? (yes)

    17. The pretended he had a foreign policy when in fact he had none? (yes)

    18. They blinded the American People to his foreign policy failures? (yes)

    19. They lied about the state of the economy, unemployment, the bailout, etc. for his benefit? (yes)

    20. They gave him all the cover he needed to rip asunder the bill of rights and our constitutional system? (yes)

    21. They helped him dissolve our sovereignty? (yes) sat still while he ripped the bill of rights apart? (yes)

    And now after all these lies, they ask us to believe on more lie:

    Namely, that the relationship between Obama and the press is the worst ever.

    I hope it is as bad as they now say it is.

    For then, I would dare to hope that he uses the power of his office to destroy big media.

    Then, I could look back on the sorry history of this jackal and say, at least he did one thing right.

  64. What they are really saying is when they promoted and installed and protected him what they had in mind was a power sharing arrangement whereby the major media outlets would co determine the future of this nation without regard to the will of the people. What they have discovered is that they are not the insiders they thought they were and a dictator never agrees to share power with anyone, and everyone who is not in the inner circle will get thrown under the bus sooner or later. This is the end result of advocacy journalism, which ignores relevant facts, and aims to achieve a given result which may be inconsistent with the truth, but perfectly consistent with their own, narrow self interest. It is why as witnesses and as reporters of events, big media is not worthy of belief. By their very actions as noted above they have self impeached themselves. And anyone who hopes to serve the interests of the American People in times like this must slap down any reporter who demands to know their views on evolution. Big media needs to be attacked from all sides, to save the Republic.

  65. yes Admin…that is my bottom line…if O is involved and again it is in secret and the govt will now regulate…I do not trust it…and I expect to see internet costs go up with mysterious fees and taxes that will appear

  66. Perhaps the biggest joke in all this was big media’s constant refrain the Obama was a law professor, and by reason of that, and the lying cheating and stealing he got away with in the campaign–the smartest man to ever set foot in the white house. If true, then he would be smarter than Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many others whose intellect was not merely assumed but proven by their actions. Where is the proof that Messiah Obama is what big media assured us he was, ad infinitum ad nausem. His foreign and domestic policies have proven to be an abject failure. He is a joke. But the biggest joke was when the world learned that for all this hype, Obama’s IQ is mere 124. An intelligent man in an intelligent house in an intelligent city according to one of is black journalist admirers–the laughing hyena Eugene Robinson of WashPo. But all the proof extant not only fails to prove it, but suggests the very opposite conclusion. He is a fucking idiot.

  67. Political ramifications of Netanyahu’s speech:

    http://news.yahoo.com/in-israel–analysts-see-election-boost-for-netanyahu-from-speech-173111102.html

    In Israel, analysts see election boost for Netanyahu from speech
    The prime minister’s defiant address played well back home, where it’s the security, stupid!

    JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands to get at least a small, but potentially decisive, election bump from his speech yesterday at a joint session of Congress, where he castigated President Barack Obama for his handling of nuclear negotiations with Iran. [snip]

    But in Israel, the image of Netanyahu championing Israeli interests in the American capital and receiving more than 20 standing ovations in the process could provide the margin he needs to secure a third consecutive term when Israelis go to the polls in less than two weeks, according to analysts.

    I think it played well here. In a way, it was a masterpiece,” said Tamar Hermann, a political scientist who conducts regular polling for the Israel Democracy Institute. “From a theatrical point of view, he did a great job.”

    Netanyahu is fighting a tough election campaign against not just the main opposition party, known as the Zionist Camp, but also a raft of right-wing and center factions. Under Israel’s parliamentary system, the more support these smaller factions drain from Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, the harder it will be for him to form a majority coalition and keep his job as prime minister.

    The election will take place on March 17.

    Normally, antagonizing the White House would not make for a fruitful campaign strategy. The U.S. gives Israel key political support and billions in military aid and is seen in Israel as a vital ally. At least once in the past, Israeli voters have punished an incumbent who appeared to mismanage the relationship. (The incumbent, Yitzhak Shamir, was defeated by Yitzhak Rabin in 1992).

    But Netanyahu seems to be willing to gamble that Israelis feel differently in the current campaign cycle. For one thing, many of them simply don’t like Obama. In a poll published last year, only one in three Israelis had a favorable view of the American president. And they seem to be particularly troubled by his handling of negotiations with Iran. Only one in five Israelis said Obama could be trusted to prevent the Islamic regime from developing nuclear weapons.

    Netanyahu echoed the distrust again and again in his speech before Congress, which nearly 60 Democratic lawmakers boycotted. He said Obama was negotiating a “bad deal” that would leave Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place and threaten Israel’s survival.

    “The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. … We can’t let that happen,” Netanyahu said.

    “But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.” [snip]

    His election bump will likely come from voters with positions that are closer to his own on Iran and other security matters — people who have migrated to smaller parties within the nationalist camp over economic or social issues.

    Those secondary issues — including a severe housing shortage highlighted in a recent government report — tend to influence elections only when security matters move to the bottom of the campaign agenda. With his dramatic address in Congress, Netanyahu was ensuring that the issue perceived as his strength remains at the top.

    “What’s certain is that this week will be dominated by the issue Netanyahu and his campaign want to highlight,” wrote political analyst Yossi Verter in the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper Wednesday. “Security, security, security.”

    If Obama’s purpose was to destroy Netahyahu… Obama boobed again.

  68. Jeff Tobin, the obamaidiot, was on TV shilling for Holder, and saying the results of the investigation prove that not only did the protesters have something to protest about ( parking tickets, lol), try that in Texas, but it proved beyond a doubt that the Ferguson PD should be dissolved (WTF) and incorporated into another, nearby larger, one assumes blacker, PD..The manchild is, insane.

  69. I, read that article admin…I wish I could vote for Bibi..I may just do that in 2016 as a write in for POTUS.

  70. Khameneie…may he rot in Christian hell…

    Apparently only the good die young….

    He and Castro have had more than their 15 minutes and caused the death of untold thousands. ..

  71. Update IV: Tomorrow is a big day at the Supreme Court for ObamaCare. The Justices will sit down for private deliberations on the latest ObamaCare case. It was no surprise therefore, that advocates on both sides of the issue took their arguments pro and con public today for one last thrust at the nine Justices. Most of the propaganda/discussion is about Justice Kennedy and his words/intentions (we speculated about that in an update below).

    Yesterday, ObamaCare defenders tried to convince themselves that Justice Kennedy was on their side. Ruth Marcus today tries to keep the drum rolling but is forced to admit that maybe (as we argued) things are not as clear as ObamaCare shills HOPE:

    Kennedy’s concern involved whether prohibiting subsidies on federal exchanges would be unfair — not to citizens denied subsidies, mind you, but to states themselves. States, Kennedy noted, would be put to the coercive choice of either setting up their own exchanges or being stuck with the ensuing disaster.

    “From the standpoint of the dynamics of Federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we’ll send your insurance market into a death spiral,” Kennedy told Michael Carvin, the lawyer representing four individuals challenging the federal subsidies. “It seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there’s a serious constitutional problem if we accept your argument.”

    Kennedy’s point has contradictory implications, one tilting in favor of those challenging the subsidies, one in the government’s direction. On the pro-challenger side, he could find that (a) the law clearly does not provide for federal subsidies and (b) is unconstitutional because it effectively forces states to establish their own exchanges.

    That’s what we wrote in our of our updates. Justice Kennedy is actually making another argument for why ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL not merely statutorily defective. Kennedy thought the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in ObamaCare case #1 and to us it appears clear he still thinks it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Arguments to preserve ObamaCare are mostly scare-fests of fearmongering horror worthy of Halloween. SCOTUSblog mostly spun the line of the ObamaCare shills but we found this nugget from the down-the-middle Amy Howe:

    Alito added that, if Congress didn’t want to limit the subsidies to the residents of states that had set up their own exchanges, it could have used more precise language to do so – as it did, for example, in making clear that the District of Columbia (which is not a state) nonetheless qualifies as a “state” for purposes of the ACA.

    Justice Kennedy’s concerns about states’ rights resurfaced again during Verrilli’s argument, but this time pointing in the other direction. Responding to Verrilli’s contention that it would not have made any sense for the ACA to include a provision for the federal government to set up exchanges if Congress envisioned that the states would all do so, Kennedy suggested that the fall-back option might have been added so that the states could “show that they had concerns about the wisdom and workability of the [ACA] in the form that it was passed.” Later on, Kennedy also challenged other aspects of the government’s reading of the statute – for example, he cited the Court’s earlier cases to make the point that, if the IRS is going to allow “billions of dollars” of tax deductions for the subsidies, “it has to be very, very clear.

    Good points all. Another tasty essay on ObamaCare which fries an ObamaCare defender’s arguments is Sean Trende’s Does ‘Joy of Cooking’ Explain Logic of King v. Burwell?

    The problem, at least for the five conservative justices, is that the next case before it really might be the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and if they find for the government here, that next case will be evaluated in the shadow of a decision holding that “oil” can mean “butter,” and that “whipped with a blender” can mean “whipped by hand” (notwithstanding a statutory definition in the latter instance). They are just going to be incredibly reluctant to do so, as that would undermine an awful lot of precedent on statutory interpretation that conservatives have worked hard to erect.

    Pancake recipes included.

    Attorney General of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt in the Wall Street Journal provided Justice Kennedy all he needs to rule against ObamaCare with federalism as the justification. Likewise Avik Roy at Forbes provides 7 Reasons Why Obamacare ‘Federalism’ Won’t Lead Anthony Kennedy To Join The Supreme Court’s Left In King v. Burwell. It’s a CLASS-y argument by Roy.

    ————————————————————————–

  72. Jeff Toobin should have a disclaimer under his name reading: “I am an Obama puppet, which means that every time you see me express an opinion, an Obama operative has his hand shoved up my ass and is literally moving my lips and speaking for me.”

  73. “What’s certain is that this week will be dominated by the issue Netanyahu and his campaign want to highlight,” wrote political analyst Yossi Verter in the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper Wednesday. “Security, security, security.”

    ___________

    And that would have actually been the case except when Obama realized how petty and un-presidential he appeared when compared to Netanyahu, he decided it would be a good time to slam Hillary with false claims of illegality and impropriety with regard to her email account.

  74. I am not a lawyer…however isn’t is possible that Kennedy asks contradictory questions simply to play ‘devil’s advocate’ and to unviel thinking/arguments/POV from all angles…

  75. S

    The info on that site is very limited, but this seems to be the key paragraph to the controversy:

    …”In short, Netflix is trying to say that it’s not turning its back on net neutrality. It’s a tough argument to make, however, in the wake of pieces in Gigaom and the Verge that highlight a controversial deal Netflix just struck in Australia. That deal appears to violate the spirit of net neutrality because it exempts Netflix from user data caps — a practice that the FCC has said it would look at askance here in the United States.”

    —-

    This other site explains Netflicks stance with the new Australian deal.

    [snip] “…”Oddly, Netflix’s position on this issue seems to differ depending on the hemisphere. In Australia, Netflix is taking a notably different stance. The company has struck a new deal with Australian broadband ISP iiNET that exempts all Netflix content from the company’s usage caps when the service goes live on March 24”

    https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150303/04375730190/netflixs-love-net-neutrality-notably-absent-australia-where-its-striking-cap-exempt-deals-with-isps.shtml

    The problem with Netflix’s and the ISP’s (Internet SERVICE Providers, like Comcast, AT & T DSL, etc.) is the amount of broadband traffic a user can take up without being charged extra for massive consumption with movies, games and live stream, etc.

    The ISP’s would like to limit customers usage with ‘basic service’ because of cost of the phone lines required to transport this data, and they would love to charge customers more for using up lots of bandwidth. Similar to Comcast charging us to carry channels like HBO instead of just basic cable on our cable tv.

    Companies like Netflicks don’t want the ISP’s to limit bandwidth to their customers (because their movies take a lot of bandwidth and would limit customers using their services.) Netflicks wants to make the money from customers that come to their site and watch movies.

    Net Neutrality in the US is supposed to help keep the ISP’s from being a monopoly and demanding what ever profits from customers they can get. So in a way, websites like Netflicks want to have the most freedom of usage of bandwidth and make as much profit from their customers.

    The difference to the user in this case is that customers don’t want to pay more just to get to websites like Netflicks, because we can all choose to not visit the site in the first place.

    This is difficult to explain, I hope I have made the situation a little clearer.

    One more thing, there are ISP monopolies in the US, some folks only have one internet provider and are stuck with what ever service and cost they demand. I think AT & T still owns most of the phone lines, at least on the west coast, it is so.

  76. gonzotx
    March 5, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Jeff Tobin, the obamaidiot, was on TV shilling for Holder, and saying the results of the investigation prove that not only did the protesters have something to protest about ( parking tickets, lol), try that in Texas, but it proved beyond a doubt that the Ferguson PD should be dissolved (WTF) and incorporated into another, nearby larger, one assumes blacker, PD..The manchild is, insane.
    —————-
    Toobin is a sick person.

    Always sides with Obama.

    Here is Tubesteak–in all his glory.

    Watch Glenn Greenwald hand him his act.

    As the Young Turk narrates.

    Daggers.

    Tubesteak flambee.

  77. I think it’s very interesting how quickly the liberal judges plow into the issue of standing. They don’t actually have any evidence that the plaintiffs lack standing, but they sure do want to get it on the record and talk about it. It’s a curious tack, but I think I know why they did it.

    The liberals are having a very hard time formulating a plausible dissent, because the case is so procedural, so basic. The case really should be decided on statutory construction alone. If the conservatives decide for the plaintiffs, and base their conclusion on statutory construction, then it becomes virtually impossible for the liberal judges to formulate a dissent. They can’t dissent against statutory construction. They would look like idiots or even worse, craven partisans. So they’re desperately looking for something to hang a dissent on. A dissent on the theory of lack of standing is at least plausible, and would keep them from having to deliver a 9-0 ruling just to preserve their dignity. Such a dissent would be a lousy position to take — the liberals would be essentially saying that they have no answer. But it would result in a 5-4 ruling, which would be the best achievable political result for the Democratic left — if nothing else the Democrats could use the 5-4 split to rile up the base in the next election. If that’s what the liberals are down to, it is very bad news for the administration.

  78. In reading the transcript, I find one thing in particular troubling. General Verrilli says, and no one refutes this, that:

    So if you read the statute, the language, the way Mr. Carvin reads it instead of the way we read it, you come to the conclusion and in a State in a federally facilitated Exchange, there are no qualified individuals.

    I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that people earning more than 4 times the poverty level are allowed to purchase insurance on the Federal exchanges, but they would not receive a subsidy when they did so. If this is the case, then the entire defense collapses. The government is arguing that if the court finds for the plaintiffs, the exchanges would be dead quiet. They would enroll exactly zero people bacause no one would be eligible. But if there already people buying unsubsidized insurance on the exchanges, then this is obviously not the case. If there are people using the exchange now without receiving subsidies, then the effect of disallowing subsidies would, at the very least, not affect those people. So there would be some number of people — at the very least the subset of people earning more than 4 times poverty wages — who would be completely unaffected by the decision. The marketplaces would continue doing business with a steady but smaller clientele — people who used it as an insurance shopping site and who were never eligable for subsidies in the first place.

    At any rate, I thought this was an obvious weakness on the government’s part and I am curious why the justices didn’t call them out on it.

  79. Orwell or chutzpah? A while back we read the Abby Gluck article in Politico which spoke to the wacky federalism issue ObamaCare shills tried to sell Kennedy. It was such a ridiculous article we ignored it: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/king-v-burwell-states-rights-115550_full.html#.VPeeaUKUBU4

    The Forbes article by Avik Roy in our last update pretty much nails the crazy making of such lunacy. In one of the updates yesterday we termed the argument something like upside down inside out. It’s really a crazy notion. Words have thus far failed us in our attempt to convey via all our many updates how crazy the argument is. Fortunately the Washington Examiner provided us with the concept that is so obvious it eluded us. They say the argument is “Orwellian”.

    The argument is indeed Orwellian. It’s also chutzpah (defined as a child who kills his parents pleads to the court for mercy because he is an orphan). Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Examiner:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-channels-orwell/article/2561075

    Toward the end of Wednesday’s oral arguments in the latest Obamacare case to make it to the Supreme Court, Donald Verrilli, U.S. Solicitor General, argued that the administration’s interpretation of the healthcare law was the most deferential to states. The argument, apart from coming from an administration that has consistently asserted a robust role for the federal government, was a bid to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote, who raised concerns about the federalism implications of the suit. [snip]

    Verrilli argued that the law’s text “is designed to afford state flexibility” and that the challengers’ interpretation would contradict this. He added, “It would be an Orwellian sense of the word ‘flexibility’ to use it in the manner that petitioners say the statute uses it, because it’s the polar opposite of flexibility.” The implication was that this would be preposterous.

    In truth, Orwellian semantics are a standard aspect of Obamacare, a law that’s named the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” even though in reality it has triggered the cancellation of individual health insurance plans, narrowed choices of doctors and hospitals, and jacked up the sticker price of insurance.

    If you want to get a sense of how Orwellian the law actually is, just look at the section cited by Verrilli — 1321. It promises “state flexibility,” as he noted, but starts by instructing the secretary of Health and Human Services (a federal official) to “issue regulations setting the standards for meeting the requirements” for states creating exchanges, offering health insurance through the exchanges and managing risk in the insurance market. It also says the federal government can impose “such other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.” So any state that sets up an exchange must abide by a mountain of federal regulations and that it can only offer insurance policies that meet the federal definition.

    Any state that acts under this section to create an exchange, must do so “at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe.” States, the law specifies, must meet federal standards and pass a state law “that the Secretary determines implements” those standards. Is that what passes for “flexibility” these days?

    This is just a small taste of the Orwellian language used in Obamacare, particularly when it comes to the role of states. Another section advertises a “Waiver for State Innovation,” which in plain English, one might think would be a way for states to avoid the mandates of Obamacare, and instead develop creative healthcare policies that best serve the unique needs of their populations. For instance, some states might prefer to focus on reducing costs by encouraging the adoption of cheaper catastrophic plans attached to health savings accounts — providing individuals more control over their healthcare dollars while still protecting them against financial ruin in case of major medical setbacks. But that sort of innovation isn’t possible under Obamacare. The “waiver” option doesn’t even kick in until 2017 and it comes with many strings attached. All insurance offered in the states must be “at least as comprehensive as the coverage” defined by Obamacare. That coverage must be offered on an exchange, and states must prove their proposals would cover as many people as Obamacare.

    Given this history of twisting language, it comes as no surprise that the administration spent Wednesday arguing that when the authors of Obamacare made subsidies available to an “exchange established by the state” they really meant, “established by the state or the federal government.”

    ObamaCare lawyers denouncing the plaintiffs’ arguments as Orwellian is Orwellian. It is chutzpah to make such an Orwellian argument.

  80. Republicans see Scalia’s remarks about Obamacare as a reason to be hopeful.

    __________

    Excerpt from The Hill:

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has given Republicans new ammunition in the fight over ObamaCare by endorsing the idea that Congress is certain to act if the court deals a blow to the law.

    The conservative justice contended Wednesday that lawmakers would move quickly if the court, in the case of King v. Burwell, were to strike down subsidies that are helping millions of people purchase insurance through the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov.

    Congressional Republicans had been making that very same argument in the run-up to the case, and say Scalia’s remarks should help draw attention to the multiple ObamaCare fixes that they have prepared.

    “With all of the fearmongering by the administration that things are going to be disastrous if the Supreme Court rules one way, Justice Scalia said, ‘No, Congress will act,’ ” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who is working on a Republican ObamaCare plan.

    “So I was encouraged by that, because we are committed to doing that.”

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/234820-justice-scalia-boosts-gop-hopes-in-obamacare-challenge

    ___________

    S, the pay couldn’t be much worse than my current job. lol

    I’m a little surprised moononpluto has not been around for this discussion. Hope all is well.

  81. So they’re desperately looking for something to hang a dissent on. A dissent on the theory of lack of standing is at least plausible, and would keep them from having to deliver a 9-0 ruling just to preserve their dignity. Such a dissent would be a lousy position to take — the liberals would be essentially saying that they have no answer.
    ——-
    Yes. Faced with the alternative of ignoring the plain language and the legislative history and the unhelpful comments by Professor Gruber which is hard to do if you are supposedly a judge rather than a politician in a black robe, this standing issue could be their safe harbor. This would throw the hot steaming turd back into Boehner and McConnell’s lap, and force them to face retribution of a different kind, i.e. the time honored dunking stool. Tortise McConnell might not mind the water but Boehner would object—he likes his booze neat.

  82. Far from riding to the rescue, Boeher and McConnell will own the enmity of being the RINOS who saved Obamacare. That will not endear them to the base, believe me.

  83. Brasso (two s’s) is a former doctor, but a very malleable conservative–so malleable that he is closer to a RINO. He will never defy McConnell, and will help McConnell recover the only thing that matters to him–big pharma donors.

  84. The issue of standing is simply a doctrine to hide behind. It has no legal merit. If it did, the Supreme Court never would have decided Obamacare I. As they say, legally if not politically, that ship has sailed.

  85. Just what we need, IF the SCOTUS actually does it’s job and strikes down Obama care. ..the Republican Congress will rescue it….of course.

  86. I am not a lawyer…however isn’t is possible that Kennedy asks contradictory questions simply to play ‘devil’s advocate’ and to unviel thinking/arguments/POV from all angles…
    ————-
    Or, perhaps, he is arguing his case, through the advocates, to the Obamite justices, and backing them into a corner where standing becomes their only out. No reasonable jurist, looking at the plain meaning of language in dispute, and the legislative history behind it which confirms that this was intentional, can turn around and say that language that reads X really means Not-X. The only reason to ignore the plain meaning of the language is if it would result in a forfeiture. That’s why the Obamaites offer their typical all or nothing paradigm–the entire health care system will collapse if you rule that we meant what we said–you have got to reform it. Scalia eviscerated that argument by pointing out the Congress is ready to cure the problem and believe it or not life will go on. If they rule against Obama, I am quite sure he resurrect old discussions about court packing. What do you think SHV—you know the other Roberts—who came out of Monte Mac in Philadelphia, I’ve seen the plaque in their law library.

  87. Those emails are immaterial.

    The only thing I have against the Koch Brothers is they own a hospital that saved Laurence O”Donnell’s miserable life.

    If they felt compelled to save him, they should have at least given him a brain transplant..

    The one he has got is running on fumes.

  88. I now think Admin is right. I think they will rule against Obama–and refer the matter back to congress. But if Roberts thinks this will repair his deeply damaged reputation with conservatives, he is whistling Dixie.

  89. Lawrence O’Donnell has the balls to say Hillary and her emails are a fundamental disgrace
    ———–
    If it is a disgrace he wants, then Lawrence should try looking in the mirror.

    Fuck him.

  90. I am at a loss to explain why the One we have been waiting for, the Messiah who vowed to sit down with the leader of Iran during the first year of his presidency and reach an accord, has not taken his 124 IQ, his legion of big media butt boys, and half of Fort Knox and launched a campaign entitled JOBS YES. JIHAD NO. right into the teeth of ISIS. For the man who killed Obama with his bare hands, but was humble enough to let the SEALS to take credit, this would seem like a no brainer.

  91. (Correction) For the man who killed OSAMA . . .

    Osama, Obama, what’t the difference?

    Both of them love their country.

    The only question is which country.

  92. Admin has a wonderful ability to formulate axioms that explain everything about a particular subject.

    One of them stated that Obama cannot be trusted. That statement has been validated 10000 times since Admin first said it.

    Another example is what we see on the above thread: ObamaCare law is a total mess that can never work is what is at play here.

    Time has proven that to be correct, and it will be even more visible when the court pitches the tar baby to Congress.

    Which is why the RINO will soon learn there is no glory in saving Obamacare. In fact the cure may be worse than the disease.

  93. When Mitch gets the ball, his first, second, third, fourth and fifth priority will be to protect his donors.

    The idea that he will ever help the American People is the height of folly.

  94. That statement has been validated 10000 times since Admin first said it.

    __________

    Which is another reason the contrived hoopla about Hillary and the emails is so amazing – and both Dims and Pubs are feigning trauma over this non-issue and the so called “lies” Hillary told. When Obama and his people have lied about every freakin’ thing in the world. His Obamacare builder admitted that lie. There have been too many to count. No one has held Obama or his unqualified brats accountable. Yet, MSM and every low life Dim and Republican who can get his/her sorry ass in front of a camera, a mic, or a keyboard is pretending to be just appalled.

    I hope to god Hillary enters this race, wins this presidency, and gives them something to be appalled about – every backstabbing, scum-sucking, crooked-as-a-snake one of them.

    At some point their BS accusations and attacks will begin to have the opposite of the intended affect. People know how much she has been investigated, and has yet to be found culpable. After a while, it begins to look like what it is – unjustified attacks on the strongest contender to make way for one of the losers.

  95. Wow! That pic of Obama foreign policy is amazing. Asking price of the original painting is 300,000 big ones. Tell Mrs. Smith thanks, wbb.

  96. Fifty years from now, those paintings will be worth millions for perfectly capturing the dark days during the second decade of the 21st century.

  97. You’re optimistic, Tony. In 50 years those of us who aren’t dead, thereby making us eligible to vote should one of the Obama girls run for POTUS, will have been replaced by a jihadist in need of a job. The semi-reformed radical islamist who becomes head of the National Portrait Gallery will probably seek out every portrait of O, frame them all in gold frames, and kill anyone who even draws a cartoon of him.

    Not to be a Debbie Downer or anything.

  98. I’m confident that, short of a nuclear war, there will still be an underground market for such paintings even in that environment. For all we know, the remaining Western powers still remaining and at war with the Islamic scourge will be in the southern hemisphere like Australia or New Zealand where paintings like those may be smuggled into.

  99. admin
    March 5, 2015 at 8:04 pm
    —————–
    Thank you for the encouraging updates! It is sobering, however, to think that even if Kennedy rules with the other three conservative justices that the case will then come down to what Roberts decides. Given Roberts’ track record, the government may still have a chance at winning this case.

  100. Tony, Admin: since this case does not involve constitutional doctrine, and does not reverse the government take over of 1/5 of the economy, but merely involves statutory interpretation based on the plain meaning of language and a consistent legislative record and does not involve a forfeiture (which equity abhors), I think this is not a lay up, but a pretty easy case for Roberts to side with the conservative faction without damaging his reputation in the community he cares about Washington who cares only about big government. The end game here will still be a take over of 1/5 of the economy, which makes Republican donors happy and allows McConnell to get them back. The only saving grace is the possibility that they will create a more patient centered model with competition. If they need help fashioning such a program, I know a genius who is a professor at MIT who knows how to put a high inside fast ball past the American People and brag about it later. Frankly, in Washington, such candor is . . .rare, and . . . refreshing.

  101. I look at this very simplistically, because I am a simple man, and because if you get too far into the nitts it becomes akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just look at how far off the mark Constituional Law Professors like Larry Tribe, and fabulous media celebrities like Tubesteak whom as Glenn Greenwald points out loves freedom and always sides with Obama were in predicting the outcome of Obamacare I, after Verilli fell on his sword, and was for a fortnight the most despised man in Washington. (Note: I just hope no none here remembers that I was of the same opinion, whereas Admin took a more accurate view). But being simplistic, lets take it from the top. Forget about standing, for the reasons set forth above. What the states are saying is that that the federal government should be bound by what it said, and what Obama is saying, once he gets past silly games of semantics, is you must use your equitable powers to reform what congress said because it is not working–otherwise the integrity of the entire act is in jeopardy. Putting aside the question of whether the court should reform language from the bench by judicial fiat, or should remand the issue to congress, the larger question is the one I mentioned above. In theory at least, the purpose of the act would not be defeated if the clause in question was ruled invalid. The funding mechanism would have to be replaced and that is the role of congress, who created the problem in the first place. In order for the court to reform the language, it would have to have before it an entire record of all the consequences of doing that, whereas the consequences which are obvious at this point, all auger in favor of a putting the hot potato back in the lap of congress, along with a lesson in the basic principles of statutory interpretation and a lecture to Obama on states rights.

  102. A new bombshell report from Politico found that House Speaker John Boehner had several days of secret negotiations with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the recently emboldened former Speaker, leading up to his decision to flip-flop and fund President Obama’s executive amnesty—including a pre-hashed out deal to use the hoopla around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Tuesday address to Congress over Iran’s nuclear ambitions as
    political cover to sneak in the extraordinarily controversial vote. Even with the bombshell report, however, Boehner’s office continues to deny any deal took place.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/nancy-pelosi-empowered-by-gop-dissension-115733.html#ixzz3TYR26Jhq

  103. If I were the court, I would also point out that this is one of the many perils involved in rushing omnibus legislation through congress with no opportunity for Members to read, much less debate, what is in it.

  104. foxyladi14
    March 6, 2015 at 11:01 am
    —–
    We knew this already, based on confidential reports.

    But seeing it confirmed puts more pressure on Boehner—and on the Republican Party.

    If I were Ted Cruz, I would be glad to see this made public.

    Sunlight is disinfectant. Electric light the best policeman.

    Secret covenants secretly arrived at have been a causus belli.

    Here, it will be no different.

  105. Wbb,

    Mrs Smith still have her blog? Jan still on it?
    I thought eventually she would come back. ..goes to show you what I know. ..

  106. foxyladi14
    March 6, 2015 at 10:50 am
    What has happened to the Republicans? Did they not get, that very clear message that we sent them back in November??
    _____________

    I think they got it – and failed to act on it.

  107. gonzotx
    March 6, 2015 at 11:15 am
    —–
    Yes. I believe she still has the blog.

    I think Jan mentioned she had some health issues.

    We miss her.

  108. The differences between the Republican establishment and the Republican base are irreconcilable and cannot be papered over. As such, they are grounds for divorce. The amnesty betrayal, coming on the heels of ethic cleansing of conservatives by establishment types, utilizing the most scurrilous methods normally associated with the other party, i.e. race baiting, fear mongering etc. culminating in the nomination of Jebediah (JEB) Bush who despises Americans and believes illegal immigration is an act of love, will be their demise. It cannot be otherwise. The amazing thing is they do not seem to see it. The seductive pull of the donor class is what guides them, and it will guide them straight to hell before they know it. Typically, this debacle is avoided by nominating a conservative as vice president, just as Reagan (a conservative) selected Bush (a RINO). But now that the establishment is cannibalizing that is a bridge too far.

  109. It is not what Boehner denies–there was no deal with the mad woman of congress, I swear it–it is what his electorate comes to believe. And there is simply no way his denial can be believed. The facts alone are sufficient to damn him. He is used up. He lacks the moral legitimacy to remain in that position. Sooner or later the donor class will see this and cashier him out. One good expose could be the catalyst.

  110. Both Drudge and Breitbart are being played by Obama’s dirty tricks brigade to attack Hillary and discourage her from running.

  111. Desperado Drudge
    ________

    Scared shitless, as well they should be. If that’s the best they can do to stop Hillary from being elected, they should be very afraid. That faux scandal won’t stop her if she decides to run. And, as the anti-Hillary forces on the right and the left continue to sim their small guns, loaded with blank ammo at Hillary, all they succeed in doing is fueling her supporters’ anger and resolve to put her in the WH if that’s where she decides she needs to be.

    So let them keep it up. We had plenty of experiencing fighting them in 2008, and we’ve been waiting for the chance to fight them again. They had better be ready to bring it. Because we’re damn sure ready for them.

  112. One can only hope the fools continue their ridiculous email assault on Hillary. It is kind of like impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job and rolling over for Obola’s assault on the Constitution. That is the double standard that should clue the American People that the Clintons are more likely to stand for them than any of the other punks being promoted.

  113. ” I am quite sure he resurrect old discussions about court packing. What do you think SHV—you know the other Roberts—who came out of Monte Mac in Philadelphia, I’ve seen the plaque in their law library.”
    ****
    John may have concocted a fantasy play entitled “West Coast Hotel II” where he stars as Owen J., when he came up with penalty=tax. He staked his “Great Legacy” on his “National Federation” opinion, I think he will double down on King v Burwell. Roberts legacy may be “Bush’s Warren”.

  114. After voting to fund millions of illegal immigrants, the idiots are now looking at a looming debt ceiling they cannot meet and the financial markets are dropping like rocks. F&$)&^%$ S@)&^%$!!! idiots. Those markets have not made real gains since the November elections. The Fed has been keeping them in precarious balance. But don’t worry, Soros and Buffet have already withdrawn enough loot to stay fat. Too bad it can’t keep them from getting old.

Comments are closed.