Home / General / The <i>King v. Burwell</i> Waaaaaaaambulance

The King v. Burwell Waaaaaaaambulance

Comments
/
/
/
857 Views

Cute-Crying-Baby

Conservatives are whining about Obama offering criticisms of the argument that Spain was invaded by the Moops. And I guess if you were making that argument you wouldn’t want it subject to any scrutiny either:

And yet various conservatives who anxiously want the Supreme Court to willfully misread the law and cripple ObamaCare reacted hysterically. “[T]ypical Obama bullying of the Court,” huffed the legal scholar and blogger Glenn Reynolds. “[T]here’s nothing ‘moral’ about attempting to bully the Supreme Court by presenting a false choice between the rule of law and love for one’s neighbor,” thundered a Republican legal operative. Michael Cannon, one of the major drivers of the litigation, which claims the federal government does not have the right to provide subsidies to states that do not establish their own health care exchanges, asserted that it was “a speech designed to cow the Supreme Court justices into turning a blind eye to the law.”

[…]

But the quality of the arguments against Obama isn’t really the point. Claiming that Obama isn’t allowed to criticize the court is an attempt to control the politics should the court wreck the federally established exchanges. As Sen. John Thune’s infamous bellyflop on Twitter showed, Republicans will try to argue that if a conservative challenge to the ACA is accepted by a bare majority of GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices, and state and federal legislators refuse to do anything as millions of people lose their insurance, it’s Barack Obama’s fault.

If that argument sounds dumb, it’s because it is. So I really can’t blame the ACA’s opponents for their preemptive whining. Like every other aspect of this latest legal challenge, the argument is an almost comically transparent fraud. If I was trying to sell the idea that Congress set up a federal backstop that was designed to fail, and kept this a secret for reasons nobody has ever been able to explain, I might argue that disagreeing with me was inherently illegitimate too.

Does someone argue that Obama shouldn’t be allowed to argue that the Court shouldn’t have taken the case because of President, Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the House, President, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and first overall pick in the 2015 MLB Draft Jonathan Gruber? You’ll have to click to discover the surprising answer!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text