Obamacare at the Supreme Court: Damon Root on King v. Burwell

Is the government's position "gobbledygook?"

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Obamacare at the Supreme Court: Damon Root on King v. Burwell

HD Video Download

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, which might invalidate the subsidies given to Obamacare policies through federal exchanges as opposed to those run by the states. Is the government's position "gobbledygook" as Justice Antonin Scalia remarked?

Reason Senior Editor Damon Root sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to give his account of the case, what he heard during today's argument, and his thoughts on which way the justices are leaning. 

Edited by Joshua Swain. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Swain. 

Approximately 5 minutes. 

Comments

[Sevo]

This is just pathetic.
Rather than read what it says, certain portions of the SCOTUS are involved in divining goat entrails to determine what that hag Pelosi might have meant if she has enough brains to pour shit out of her soup bowl before she ate.

[PapayaSF]

OT: M. Stanton Evans has died. He was a conservative, but his economic leanings seem pretty libertarian to me. I think most libertarians would be fine with most of the Sharon Statement.

[Suthenboy]

From the Sharon Statement:

"That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it (government) takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; "

I think that sums it up pretty well. It also dovetails very well with the communists deliberate effort to destroy the morality of a nation. I will keep that in mind the next time Tony is vomiting all over a thread.

[Tony]

I don't trust you idiots to dictate morality for me, thanks. Also, is there any empirical justification for that claim, or is it all just bullshit?

[Sevo]

Tony|3.5.15 @ 10:55AM|#
"I don't trust you idiots to dictate morality for me, thanks"

You should; you don't have any.

[Derpetologist]

Found this bit of lunacy as I read through the oral arguments. Justice Kagan made an analogy to 3 legal clerks, Will, Elizabeth and Amanda. A judge tells Will to write a memo and tells Elizabeth to edit it. But for some reason, Will does not write the memo so Amanda writes it instead. How Amanda knew what memo to write was not explained. Kagan then asked if Elizabeth has an obligation to edit the memo even though Elizabeth's instructions were to edit the memo written by Will. The plaintiff said no and Kagan said yes.

I agree with the plaintiff. If Will was the only one who was told to write the memo and Elizabeth was the only one told to edit it, if Will doesn't write the memo, Elizabeth has no obligation to edit it. And Amanda was not told to write anything so the fact that she did is meaningless.

Just as Elizabeth has no obligation to edit a memo not written by Will, the Federal govt cannot offer subsidies to States that did not set up exchanges.

Suppose a parent tells one kid to wash the dishes and tells another to put them away. If the first kid doesn't wash the dishes, does the second have an obligation to put them away? I'd say no. But suppose a third kid washes the dishes. Does the second one have an obligation to put them away? Again, I'd say no. Why should the second kid have to work if the first one didn't do his job?

[Derpetologist]

Kagan's defense of her answer:

So it's not the simple four or five words because the four or five words in my example, it's obvious that Elizabeth should edit the memo. It's the whole structure and context of the provision that suggests whether those instructions carry over to the substitute, isn't it?

No, moron, it's not obvious. The only thing that is obvious is that all 3 people in the example failed to do what they were told.

[Sevo]

"So it's not the simple four or five words because the four or five words in my example, it's obvious that Elizabeth should edit the memo. It's the whole structure and context of the provision that suggests whether those instructions carry over to the substitute, isn't it?"

This is Bo-level sophistry; inventing entirely new disputes in the hopes of them being accepted as analogous and in the hopes the inventor is seen as a 'deep thinker'.
Nonsense on stilts.

[Sevo]

You'd think a certain level of rationalization would lead to embarrassment, but seemingly, that's not the case.

[PapayaSF]

Plus, this isn't about an "obligation," it's about a law. The IRS can only legally do what the law allows it to do. The IRS can't decide "Hey, these 'subsidies' sound like a good idea, so let's give them to whoever we want." They also aren't "obliged" to correct Congress's errors.

[Apatheist ?_??]

I'm not sure I follow you, I mean it's a dumb analogy, but if my boss tells me that A is going to write a memo and then I should edit, proof and finalize it, I'm still expected to do that even if B ends up writing it. And if my parents told my brother to wash the dishes and me to put them away, I'd still be expected to do that even if my sister ended up washing the dishes. Both are real life things that have happened to me.

[josh]

i agree about her analogy. i just can't see how she think it applies except that she started with a conclusion and is working backward. in those cases, it's amazing what makes sense to you, which is why you don't do it.

[Bill Dalasio]

I don't necessarily agree. What if the content of A and B's memos are completely different? If you edit proof and finalize B's, you're not doing your job.

[Agile Cyborg]

Fuckin hardass dry rice noodles are not like godam chips.. like fuckin eating a plantation of fucking skeletal octopusi

[Agile Cyborg]

shit will make your goddam tongue fight a fuking mouth barracuda cloud

[Quincy 12]

And quinoa is not your snuntch crack friend. Tortilla chips? The box was a snack.

[Quincy 12]

"Spocking Fivers"

[Agile Cyborg]

My fucking mind hole just clamped on you crinkly ass thread bro..... like a fukin giraffe cake laced with heroines... with tight titties...

[Quincy 12]

Sorry?

[Sevo]

Hard to make George look like anyone other than George on an ace, innit?

[Suthenboy]

Goddamn that is funny.

[Agile Cyborg]

Does obama tiptoe round all the horrible Muslims?

[Agile Cyborg]

Some muslims are awesome and some muslims want to be rockets.

[Agile Cyborg]

Is Muhammad a sweet dude that enjoys hanging with reason bros? Nah, wants to fukin kill all le' sweet minds.... no special minds other than sharia...

feminists like Muhammad because he chops the heads of adulterers....what a fucking crippled philosophy... from the lowest fukin iq ever.

[Quincy 12]

All I can say for Mo is, maybe, maybe he liked cats.

[Wasteland Wanderer]

So Mo was a crazy cat lady? That would explain why he thought dogs are unclean...

[Quincy 12]

It's an eggshell evasion

[Derpetologist]

Not to be outderped, Justice Sotomayor said:

In those States that don't -- their citizens don't receive subsidies, we're going to have the death spiral that this system was created to avoid.

Wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The system was created to pressure states to set up their own exchanges. There was nothing in the law about preventing insurance rates from rising. In fact, in order for the idea to work, the insurance rates of many people MUST go up!

[Sevo]

..."their citizens don't receive subsidies, we're going to have the death spiral that this system was created to avoid."...

'Hmm, yes. I see the kidney telling me that Obama wanted Pelosi, as represented by the large intestine, to insure that a death spiral was avoided!'

[Derpetologist]

But wait! There's more! Justice Sotomayor further said:

Tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way?

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the carpenter from Brooklyn Heights!

She is asking a guy to prove a negative?! That bullshit wouldn't fly on a junior high debate team.

I need a meme: http://funnyfilez.funnypart.co.....people.jpg

[Vulgar Madman]

Looks like she's saying it is coercive.

She is such a mess.

[Sevo]

To be honest, it's easy to show it is non-coercive. No agent is arriving with a gun to force someone to do something; not providing subsidies is in no way 'coercion', no more than not subsidizing speech /= censoring speech.
Now WIH she means by "an unconstitutional way" is a mystery to me.

[Derpetologist]

All my employers coerced me into working for them because they knew I wanted money!

/derp

[Suthenboy]

"Madame Justice, your job is not to save systems or institutions. Your job is to rule on the constitutionality of this law. Nothing more, nothing less. "

[Paul.]

But... institutions need saving from time to time, don't they?

[Derpetologist]

And now the windowlicker Kennedy is grasping at straws:

Let me say that 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. We'll have people pay mandated taxes which will not get any credit on -- on the subsidies. The cost of insurance will be sky-high, but this is not coercion. 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 adopt your argument.

Hey Turd Burglar! The govt already threatens to yank money from states for all kinds of reasons.
And by the way: where in the constitution is the govt granted this power?

This is getting painful and I'm not even halfway through.

[Derpetologist]

More wisdom from Justice Kennedy

Sometimes we think of things the government doesn't. [laughter]

Durr hurr hurr hurr derpy derp!

[Suthenboy]

"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 adopt your argument."

So Kennedy openly admits that Obumblecare is unconstitutional? Just like that? How did the piece of shit vote on this law the last time around? Let me guess.....

[MJGreen]

...He voted that the mandate was unconstitutional. I think he even wrote the dissenting opinion, and was mad as hell about it.

[Paul.]

So now he's stretching himself even further to save it?

[Quincy 12]

Sometimes we think of things the government doesn't. [laughter]

You hear derp, I hear boots.

[Suthenboy]

If these people were actually competent judges this would be a unanimous decision reached after five minutes and the decision would read;

"The plain language of the law and the clearly stated intent by the authors demands that subsidies be given out only through state exchanges. Next case please."

The sophistry and rationalization that will be used to prop this piece of shit up will damage the credibility of all of the institutions involved, especially the supreme court, to the point where people will openly joke about them, people who never would have done so before. It will be more common than not.

They are making a joke of themselves. I don't know if they realize it or not. They might think that the credibility of government is indestructible but it is not. It is actually quite delicate. These fucking idiots are swinging a sledge hammer at a basket of eggs.

The bullshit they spew will also damage their own careers. You can't sit on the highest court in the land and spew nonsense and have people respect you. Roberts already will be known as Mr. Penaltax for the rest of his life. I guess the others are jealous.

[Sevo]

I think we need Sokal to write a 'transformative, transgresive' argument anonymously and have it presented to SCOTUS to see what sort of 'serious' consideration it receives.

[PapayaSF]

There needs to be a variation of the postmodern essay generator that does legal arguments.

[Paul.]

Intersectionalityism.

[Contrarian P]

The Court has credibility? I must have missed it when it came back. After Dredd Scott, separate but equal, Japanese internment, Kelo, Obamacare is a tax, etc. I'm pretty sure Benny Hinn has more credibility as a medical provider than the Court does as an arbiter of justice and law.

[Lord Humungus]

well said, sir.

[Derpetologist]

Plaintiff sez:

Section 1311 is a key part of this context. It says in the strongest possible terms we want States to run these Exchanges. If you give unconditional subsidies, then, of course, there is absolutely no incentive for States to do it, and you have fundamentally undermined that distinct statutory purpose. Whereas if you condition subsidies, Congress accomplishes both of its goals. Widespread subsidies, plus State-run Exchanges. In terms of terms of art, again, there is
language in the statute which says "Exchanges," "Exchanges under the Act." Those phrases
naturally encompass both HHS Exchanges and State-established Exchanges. And, yet, the Solicitor General is coming here to tell you that a rational, English-speaking person intending to convey subsidies available on HHS Exchanges use the phrase "Exchanges established by the State."

[Derpetologist]

Nazgul Kagan sez:

No. I mean, let's go back to this question of where -- where Congress put this
thing because putting aside constitutional issues, I mean, there's at least a presumption, as we interpret statutes, that Congress does not mean to impose heavy burdens and Draconian choices on States unless it says so awfully clearly. And here -- and this goes back to what
Justice Ginsburg was saying -- there's really nothing clear about this. I mean, this took a year and a half for anybody to even notice this language.

The retarded may not rule the night but they do rule the Supreme Court.

[Suthenboy]

This woman is bound to know that the authors clearly stated that they were pressuring the states to make exchanges. She is bound to have heard that booger-eating moron Gruber say so explicitly. She is bound to know that Gruber was rubbing shoulders with everyone associated with this law including Obumbles. She can also read the fucking words on paper and see that is exactly what they wrote the law to do.

Clearly what she doesn't know is that in addition to her attempt to pretend she doesn't being on record, all of the evidence she did will also be record.

[PapayaSF]

Who ever expected that Obama's Supreme Court appointments would be dim partisan hacks? Shocka.

[josh]

"putting aside constitutional issues..."

that about sums up where this case is headed.

[Paul.]

where Congress put this thing because putting aside constitutional issues,

Stop right there... I'm not reading past this.

[Mickey Rat]

Kagan is one of the many authors of this poorly constructed mess that is before the court, so of course she is going to defensive about it.

[Derpetologist]

Finally, a good analogy:

In Petitioners' brief they throw down the gauntlet with respect to a hypothetical about airports, and that -- a statute requires a State to construct an airport, it says the Federal government shall construct such airport if the State doesn't, and no one would think that the Federal government's airport was an airport constructed by the State.

Yes! So if the fed tells a state to set up an exchange and the fed sets one up after the state refuses, you can't call it a state exchange.

[Derpetologist]

Same shitheel lawyer continues:

Well, what I would say to that is that if those statutory provisions were conjoined with a provision that said airplanes may only land at airports constructed by the State, then you would conclude immediately that what -- that -- that that Federally constructed airport qualifies as an airport constructed by the State, and the -- because otherwise the statutewould make no sense. And the same exact thing is true here.

Alito's response is priceless:

"There are no statutes that make no sense."

[Derpetologist]

*Scalia's response is priceless

[Suthenboy]

I am having trouble understanding what I just read. Is shitheel arguing for the government? Is he saying that we should just assume the federal airport is one constructed by the state because?

And "There are no statutes that make no sense" is....holy shit, what a cesspool of disingenuousness. That is as bad as Scalia saying that the concept of regulatory capture ludicrous.

[Derpetologist]

The shitheel, Donald Verrilli is arguing for Obamacare subsidies for all. He begins by quoting the opposition's airport analogy.

[Suthenboy]

That is what I thought I was reading...but....in the context of that provision being put in specifically to prevent planes from landing on any but state built airports to pressure the states to build them ( your state won't get any flights if you don't build, so you better build!) he draws exactly the wrong conclusion. His conclusion is completely counterintuitive and completely disingenuous. This is not the first time this administration has argued in this manner. In fact, that may be the only way they can argue a case given the positions they take.

I was confused because I thought I had to be reading that wrong because no one is that disingenuous and full of shit.

[Frito Chews]

I think Scalia's line was meant as a challenge to shi... uh, Verrilli.

[Derpetologist]

And yes, he is arguing that if the govt orders a state to build an airport, and decrees that planes may only land at state airports, any airports built by the govt become state airports because it would be absurd to prohibit planes from landing at them.

[PapayaSF]

Ach, nonsense. His attempt to counter the analogy fails. Airports exist only to accommodate airplanes, but health insurance plans, and even health insurance exchanges, do not exist only to accommodate federal subsidies.

[Derpetologist]

All quotes taken from this transcript:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/or.....4_lkhn.pdf

[sthgrau]

Don't forget to bring a towel

[griffinjess]

my co-worker's mom makes $66 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her income was $15318 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page... http://www.Job-bandana.com

[Mickey Rat]

"Constitutional Avoidance" would reward Congressional malpractice in this case. That is, we will let the Administration interpret the statute to mean what Congress would have written had they realized their unconstitutional tactic to coerce the states was not going to work. The Supreme Court doctrine is that if you are incompetently malevolent you should get your way instead of your ass handed to you.

[userve32]

Come n man, lets roll it over the hill dude.

http://www.AnonStuff.tk

[CarolinaSistah]

Congress writes law. The Supreme Court interprets law. The President implements law.

They need to send it back to Congress to resolve the wording of the law.

[maryjaneromeo]

Just as Joseph said I'm alarmed that a stay at home mom can earn $5046 in 4 weeks on the computer .
check out the post right here ...... ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

[NjitokiaHoncahy]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobs-check.com

[woundlagnaia]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here... ......

http://www.wixjob.com