King v. Burwell and the Law
by YUVAL LEVIN
[Chief Justice Roberts] makes a much broader argument about the relationship between the vague, broadly stated aims and purposes of legislators and the role of judges interpreting the meaning of the particular laws those legislators then write…”
Obamacare is [to the Chief Justice] not so much a particular law as an overarching desire “to improve health insurance markets” and so if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes would be involved in doing so…
This understanding of the role of the judge threatens to undermine the rule of law in the American system of government, because it undermines the central place assigned to written law, and to the legislator, in that system… While it would seem to suggest that the will of the legislator should guide the system, in fact it means that the word of the legislator does not govern the other branches. It implies that Congress should have just passed a law that said “health insurance markets shall be improved,” and then left it to the executive agencies to decide how they wish to do that…
Roberts’s argument… suggests that when a law as written would be likely to have practical consequences at odds with the broadly asserted intent of its authors, judges should interpret it to have a meaning more likely to achieve that desired goal…
The health-care debate, in the context of which this case might originally have been understood, will continue because what Justice Roberts insists is impossible is true: Obamacare is a law that was intended to improve insurance markets but was designed in a way that will actually harm them. We can only hope that debate will ultimately be resolved in a way that also pushes back against the unexpected implications of this case and this decision by reasserting the supremacy of the law.
Read the whole thing.
The Chief Justice has twice approved the government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy. Now he’s concerned about disrupting “markets?” He expresses that concern by elevating “intent” above the rule of law?
Obamacare, passed using procedural chicanery, by a single party whose members hadn’t read it, was intended to dupe the American people. With John Roberts it succeeded beyond Jon Gruber’s wildest dreams. Gruber laughed about the “stupidity” of the American voter. He must be guffawing about John Roberts.
The “law,” whatever it turns out to be after the next executive order or SCOTUS interpretational creativity, should hereafter be known as SCOTUScare.
That is how Chief Justice John Roberts justified Obamacare:
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
-Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the SCOTUS decision in King v. Burwell
There are good reasons to believe this decision will neither improve health care markets, nor avoid destroying them. The majority decided this case based on their perception of the intent of Congress, despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
- The intent of Democrats in Congress – the only people who voted for it – cannot be known in this regard since they did not read the Bill.
- Jonathan Gruber, the main government architect of the law, says the intent was to fool the American people. And, specifically, by forcing the States to participate or lose the subsidies.
- Obamacare has utterly failed to improve insurance markets. It has made insurance companies rich, at great cost to the people.
- An argument advanced by those who passed the Bill is that Obamacare is intended to further the destruction of the “market,” so as to institute a government run single-payer system akin to that of Canada.
Justice Roberts, and his 5 comrades, have severely damaged the rule of law.
president Obama today issued an
imperial edict administrative order not to enforce some parts of Obamacare that have recently embarrassed him and his party. When the Congressional Republicans suggested doing this by actually passing legislation, the Democrats said Republicans were a bunch of “hostage takers,” “extortionists” and “political terrorists” who wanted to suspend “the law of the land.” As if anyone can tell what that is any longer.
The president has routinely abrogated the law: He suspended Obamacare’s employer mandate, refused to enforce the defense of marriage act, arbitrarily cancelled contracts held by auto-company bondholders, ordered American citizens killed without due process, conducted war in Libya without even Congressional input and instructed his minions to cease enforcing immigration laws. When this president unconstitutionally seizes the power of the legislature, Democrats don’t see any hostages, extortion, or terrorism.
The president’s latest arbitrary whim is bad news for insurance companies. Because insurers do not have time to arrange to violate the law he has just waived, the president undoubtedly will blame them for having complied with it.
Two Democrat insurance commissioners reject Obama’s Obamacare fix:
State [Washington] rebuts Obama plan to allow old health insurance policies
Oregon insurance commissioner says state won’t delay 2013 health coverage cancellations
They know the Obama decree can’t work. In fact, Oregon’s state exchange doesn’t work at all, and has enrolled zero people thus far. The president’s about face would just make it worse. Everybody except our pathologically narcissist president knows it.
His organizing has gone a community too far.
In Venezuela, the government thinks electronics retailers have been charging too much, so:
[Venezuela’s] President Nicolas Maduro … sent soldiers to “occupy” one chain of electronics stores and inspectors into scores of others to check for price-gouging.
Thousands of Venezuelans have been flocking to electronics stores, hoping to take advantage of new “fair prices” the government is imposing, sometimes half the previous cost.
If you read the linked article, you’ll find “flocking to electronics stores” translates into English as “looting.”
In first world countries, like the United States, we don’t have these problems. Here, we force people to buy things they don’t want and can’t use, then we redistribute that money to people so they can buy flat screen TVs and iPhones. For example, all males under age 65 are forced to buy insurance coverage for children’s dental and vision care.
Our way of looting is much better organized. For example, we have seen neither “flocking” to the government health insurance website to be disadvantaged by “unfair prices” nor looting of Best Buy.
(Part 1 of “what happens in third world countries” is here.)
The president apologizes for cancelled insurance policies. Sort of:
“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”
Sorry, mr. president, people do not find themselves in this situation based on your “assurances.” They find themselves there because of your actions and despite your lies. Period.
In a twisted way, though, you have a point: I’ll concede that without those lies (and IRS crimes), you might not be President now, but blaming the assurances is just another way of saying, “It’s not my fault.”
And, by the way, does this mean the “junk insurance policies” from “bad apple” insurers are NOT the problem you said they were last week? If those things are still true this week, why are you sorry? Isn’t everyone still better off?
And maybe Americans should have been told what was in it rather than being told we had to pass it to find out.
“We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let’s face it, a lot of us didn’t realize that passing the law was the easy part.”
Yep, they supposed deconstructing 1/6 of the American economy would be as easy as convincing Nancy Pelosi to say something stupid. Hell, they assumed she needed convincing to say something stupid. I’m pretty sure she volunteered.
Of course passing the law was the easy part. Unfortunately, just waving your hands and saying, “Make it so.” doesn’t work when your minions have zero experience in actually building anything and are economically ignorant.
So, Barack, You did build that.
What “Death Panels” means is – The government decides who delivers care, what care is allowed, where it can be delivered and what you pay for it.
There may not yet be official “Death Panels,” but the Obama Administration has no moral or philosophical objection. Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44) Tweeted this:
The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance thkpr.gs/1hHgZjp via @TPHealth—Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44) November 04, 2013
Pfeiffer is Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Advisor to the President for Strategy and Communications. The Tweet was from his official White House account.
Already, Democrats are calling for doctors to be forced to deliver the health care the government permits you to have, at the price the government wants to pay. That was the point all along. First, though, individual access to health insurance would have to be destroyed.
The spin is just making it worse, guys. It’s as if Bill Clinton had said, “I’m not going to have sex with that woman. Period!” Then, (after having sex with that woman) he would say “And the sex I did not have was better sex and vastly more affordable sex than
Hillary any American has ever delivered experienced!”
Then, the Progressives would chant in unison that fellatio is not having sex, and seek to redefine the meaning of “is.”
Oh, wait. That’s exactly what they are doing, again, just with different nouns and verbs.