Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party 58

Journal by smitty_one_each

The arguments by which the Obama administration is countering lawsuits that seek to limit Obamacare subsidies to participants in "exchanges" established by states--a limit that is specified in the Obamacare law itself--have raised the outcome's stakes. Administration officials argue that the plain, unmistakable, uncontested language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is less important than what they want the law to mean, and that hewing to its words would deprive millions of people of the subsidies that the administration had granted them regardless of those words. Therefore the courts should enforce what the administration wants rather than what the law says.
The Democratic Party, the bulk of its appointees in the judiciary, and the mainstream media echo these arguments.
America has moved away from the rule of law in recent decades, as more and more of the decisions by which we must live are made by administrative agencies in consultation with their favorite constituencies and judges rather than by the people's elected representatives. More and more, statutes passed by Congress are lengthy grants of power to administrative agencies, the content of which is determined by complex interactions between bureaucrats, special interests, and judges aligned with either. Hence House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's famous statement--that the ACA's meaning would be determined only after its passage--was true of it and most other modern legislation as well. This is the rule of men, not of law.

Obama is arguably more audacious about it, but look at the TSA.
Sarah Palin is arguing for impeachment, though that's really all about making damn_registrars foam at the mouth and driving subscriptions. We can impeach our way through the whole federal government, but if we are discussing systemic changes, then we're pissing in the wind, say I.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

Comments Filter:
  • I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).

    We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in refer

    • Ran across a phrase via Instapundit that seems to capture the Left very 'clearly': nostalgie de la boue [merriam-webster.com] .
      Putting it theologically, so much of the Left is an appeal to the flesh.
      • by gmhowell (26755)

        In a way, but don't forget the contempt that the left holds for large swaths of average slobs: those working just hard enough to not 'earn' public assistance.

        They love the union. They don't love the union members.

        • Indeed, one detects a certain contempt for the lumpenproletariat in the Left's actions.
          • So, maybe now you can see why it's so difficult to distinguish the "left" from the "right"? Both are after the same thing, and both fuel the contempt that the lumpenproletariat has for itself, which is what keeps them in their place, and *them crazy baldheads* up on top...

  • She can blather on all she wants about impeachment, that doesn't mean it makes any sense at this stage of the game. For that matter right now she isn't an elected member of anything, so her opinion on it is not any more valuable than yours, mine, or my dog's.

    However as I pointed out before, impeachment is pointless at this time. Impeachment cannot realistically remove a POTUS in less time than what President Lawnchair has left in his term. Hence indeed there is some

    pissing in the wind

    taking place or proposed here, bu

    • For that matter right now she isn't an elected member of anything, so her opinion on it is not any more valuable than yours, mine, or my dog's.

      I don't know--depends upon the cash flow for the channel.

      • For that matter right now she isn't an elected member of anything, so her opinion on it is not any more valuable than yours, mine, or my dog's.

        I don't know--depends upon the cash flow for the channel.

        So then are you saying that between citizen A and citizen B, the opinion of A is more valuable because it has more money behind it? That has been a key mantra of the GOP (for several decades at least) and its tea party (since its inception).

        • Great troll, and I'll buy off on the GOP, but the Tea Party is more accurately attacked for naiveté than anything else.
          • the Tea Party is more accurately attacked for naiveté than anything else.

            If you mean in regards to the actual effects that their spoon-fed ideals would have on >>99% of the country's population (including most of the people who have been duped into supporting the Tea Party) then I would agree with you.

            • The Tea Party's ideas are the basic ones that have driven American Exceptionalism. The issue, from my POV, is that the bulk of the population hasn't done the homework, hasn't really separated fact from fiction, doesn't participate in politics at all (and I rate myself as 'barely participating') and mostly just yells at the telly.
              So the issue is not merely one of education, but also participation.
  • nor unforeseen [thisnation.com]

    And hey pudge, the law is like words, defined by common use, not written statute. I mean, with all this yammering about precedence and case law, I guess all this shit is pretty flexible, and the guy with the best presentation wins. Waddya gonna do, eh?

  • by Bill Dog (726542)

    > We can impeach our way through the whole federal government,

    <drool>

    <devil's advocate>
    We don't like it when the Left tries to get technical with certain language, where we suggest that original intent should win out. Could it really have been the bill authors' intent to only sport subsidies in certain states?
    </devil's advocate>

    In any case, a part of me says the American idiot people voted for this guy, twice, and he gave us Obamacare, so that's what we should have. Attempted scratchi

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...