Thursday, March 5, 2015

Liberals Discover States' Rights Over Obamacare

One of the things I've been wondering about, vis-a-vis Obamacare and the King v. Burwell, case is how on earth you can dodge the fact that the Obama administration changed the plain meaning of the text of the PPACA in giving out subsidies to people in states that did not set up a state health insurance exchange.

As all the world knows, and Jonathan Gruber explained, Obamacare was set up with a gun to the heads of the states. Set up a health insurance exchange or forget the subsidies, says the text of the PPACA. But little Johnny and little Barry miscalculated on their little playground bullying. Most of the states didn't set up an exchange. So it follows that they don't get the subsidies. And that is what King v. Burwell is asking the Supreme Court to enforce.

So my question has been: how will the Supreme Court liberals justify their knee-jerk vote to uphold the IRS's illegal payment of subsidies to people in states without state exchanges?

Perfectly simple, writes The Wall Street Journal. You gussy up a states rights argument, a thing that liberals usually abhor.
But Justices Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan and others wondered if this arrangement crosses over from Congress merely attempting to influence state decisions into using spending and regulation to compel these sovereigns to join ObamaCare.
Gag me with a spoon, girls. You mean to say that all of a sudden you are worried about the federal government bullying the states into something? Why aren't you worried, e.g., about the Office of Civil Rights bullying state universities into convoluted and probably unconstitutional policies to fight the supposed "rape culture" on campus? And a hundred other liberal pet programs.
“From the standpoint of the dynamics of federalism . . . there’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument,” Justice Kennedy told plaintiffs counsel Michael Carvin.
Whoa, baby. Who'd a thought it? Constitutional issue with coercing the states? I'm shocked, shocked that there is political arm-twisting going on here.

Anyway, at least the liberal justices will have a peg to hang their kick-jerk liberal hats on. I mean, we wouldn't want to subject them to the humiliation of voting for Obamacare's illegal subsidies "just 'cos." That would be wrong.

A couple of days ago I wrote about "The Three Stages of Government and Law." My point was that any political dynasty rewrites the law to suit its convenience once it seizes power, because it can. This act of force has a beneficial result, from the point of view of the new ruling class, because it creates an aura of legality around its legislation as it enters into the zenith of its power. But at the end of a dynasty the rules that the ruling class set up no longer suffice to get it out of a jam like the Obamacare trainwreck.  So the ruling class starts flailing around and violating its own sacred principles every time it smashes up the family car after yet another drunken power binge.

The whole of liberal governance is based upon the idea that the Feds know best and that the sheeple should just shut up and accept that government by liberal experts and activists is just and fair.

So now, all of a sudden, liberals are invoking states rights? Now, at last, they are worried about the Feds coercing the states? Yeah, and I gotta bridge to sell you.

My point is that we are seeing, with the Obama administration violating its own law and digging up states rights arguments to justify its illegal and unjust Obamacare war on health care, the crumbing and ruin of the great liberal dynasty.

And it's going to get worse before it gets better.

No comments:

Post a Comment