A look at Republicans and their needs-based approach to judicial activism. (Any underlines are mine.)"Republicans hate activist judges--those black-robed elites who are willing to upset the lives of millions of people just to further a political cause...They hate them, until they need them.
And in the raw power play that is behind the attempt to kick millions of people off health care gained through the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are attempting one of the most brazen manipulations of the legal system in modern times. To pull it off, they're relying on a toxically politicized judiciary...
...In less than two weeks' time the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell--the net result of a well-orchestrated, well-financed, five-year campaign to kill President Obama's signature achievement by legal assassination. It's a remarkably flimsy case, the plaintiffs may lack standing and a host of business and health care professionals have said the consequences of backing the right-wing consortium behind this case could be catastrophic.
But none of this matters to at least four justices on the court who would rule in favor of a ham sandwich, if it meant overturning the health care law. If they get a fifth vote, more than eight million people in 34 states could lose their health coverage. Premiums for several million more would rise enough to make insurance impossible. Thousands of people, lacking basic care, may even die prematurely."
Dear Republicans: Where is your talk about "death panels" now?"'The Supreme Court is going to render a body blow to Obamacare from which I don't think it will ever recover,' said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas last month. He was licking his chops in anticipation.
This comes at a time when Republicans have recently discovered the working poor. For those holding to the last, slippery rung of middle-class dignity, nothing is harder than having no health insurance. And there is no bigger knockout blow, forcing a family into bankruptcy, than a massive medical bill."
I can personally attest to this. Our family budget is in complete disarray after a recent bout with pneumonia that put my husband in the hospital for ten days...and that is even though we have a decent healthcare policy through his police retirement fund."So, consider just who stands to lose most if the health care subsidies for people in two-thirds of the states are denied...More than 80% of them are lower- or middle-income people, working part time or full. Most of them are white. And a majority of them are in the South. So much for helping your base...
...It comes down to this: a legal challenge based on a technicality--specifically, four words. Should subsidies be available only to exchanges 'established by the states'? Or were they designed to cover the entire nation, as is obvious in the intent of the law?"
At the time the ACA was passed, Republicans seemed to agree that subsidies would be available through state AND federal exchanges.
"The Supreme Court case...grew out of a gathering in 2010 of far-right attorneys looking for a way to destroy Obamacare.
- Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) "These state-based exchanges are very little in difference between...a big federal exchange, just putting the same rules in place."
- When John Cornyn (R-Texas)- discussed "individual's (eligibility) for taxpayer provided subsides in the exchanges," he made no differentiation between state and federal exchanges.
- Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) - wrote an op-ed piece where he said that establishing state exchanges was "not a condition for receiving federal funds."
- When John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) was asked if people using federal exchanges would receive subsidies, he replied: "(Yes), as people continue to pay taxes, they're not going to give up that right to have an opportunity to use that money."
- Republican staffer Chris Condeluci acknowledged that there were lots of differences discussed during the ACA debates; but added that subsidies were so fundamental to the Act that Republican lawmakers "never argued over this particular provision."
'This bastard has to be killed as a matter of political hygiene,' said Michael S. Greve, a former chairman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, during a panel discussion. "I don't care how it's done.'"
This case that congressional Republicans are so willing to claim as their own, isn't even their work! It's someone else's ill-advised effort which they are only too, too happy to claim as their own."(Mr. Greves and friends) found four plaintiffs...(people) they claim to be 'harmed' by a technicality in the health care law that allows the federal government to subsidize people who don't get help from the states.
One of the many ironies here is that at least three of those plaintiffs appear to qualify for the great socialist, single-payer system used by Medicare or by Veterans Affairs. So, they don't really have to worry if their legal assault kills the health care of millions of people who don't have access to the cheaper federal plans.
'You are asking us to kick millions of Americans off health insurance just to save four people a few dollars,' said Judge Andre M. Davis, in oral arguments before a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. That court ruled unanimously to throw out the challenge. But the hyperpartisan Supreme Court took up the case on appeal...
...So long as judges do their dirty work, Republicans don't have a problem with politicizing the judiciary...
...Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. once used a memorable phrase to describe (judicial activism). 'My job is to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat,' he said during his confirmation hearings. By June of this year, we'll see which side of the plate he's on."
No comments:
Post a Comment