# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/461 "2014-07-23T16:10:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > IF your belief was true, IF it were the case that federal exchange were meant to be a disincentivized and unlikely fallback in the unlikely case that state exchanges failed, and IF liberals woke up a year later, realized that many states didn’t have state exchanges, and suddenly wanted to ex post facto change the clear meaning of the bill in order to undisincentivize the federal exchange – then that would be wrong of them to do so. But I don’t believe that’s the case. ISTM that there’s an excluded middle here. I personally am very skeptical of the notion that federal exchanges were deliberately excluded. But I don’t think they were intended to be included and left out through an oversight either. I think nobody paid attention to them at all. People did not anticipate that they would come into existance, at least in a big way, and did not consistently try to make sure the law would “make sense” if there ended up being a bunch of them. IOW, I think if someone would have pointed out to the people writing the law “hey, you know you left out the federal exchanges, and you never know, maybe some states won’t make exchanges and the federal exchanges won’t be eligible for subsidies”, I think it’s likely that they would have amended the language. But no one did and the language was not amended. So the other side of the argument (to the extent that it’s valid, in my speculation of the facts) is not “this is what we meant to do but someone forgot to add the proper language”. It’s more like “this is what we would have done had we thought about it some more”. I am not a legal scholar so I don’t know what the legal approach is in such cases. But I would personally prefer that laws were required to be executed as actually written and passed, and not as the framers and signers would have written it had they thought more about it. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Do you have evidence for this? Was there a case in the past where a very complicated law was passed, and someone made an argument that read in isolation a few individual sections of it said X, but that in the larger context of the bill (and the debate that had preceded it) it seemed likely that the intent of those sections was Y – and Richard Parker came along and argued strenuously that the precise letter of the law had to be followed, and thus X should be implemented? > > Because if not, then you’re basically just making shit up. > > It’s one thing (and almost certainly an accurate thing) to say that the SDMB as a whole, being as liberal as it is, is having a reaction to this whole issue that is informed not by an SDMB-wide consensus on the precise role of judicial review but on an SDMB-wide consensus of Obamacare-good-Republicans-bad. But that doesn’t give you grounds to focus that accusation on one individual. Weird that you did not similarly object to RP doing the exact same thing in the very post Bricker was responding to. Could almost lead one to speculate about your own motivations 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/462 "2014-07-23T16:16:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think you do. I think you have spent post after post valorizing the dissent because it supports a political goal you like, and I think you are willing to be very flexible in choosing what standard of judicial review judges should use based on what political goal you like. I think you are mistaken. I’m not seeing that at all. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/463 "2014-07-23T16:18:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think you do. I think you have spent post after post valorizing the dissent because it supports a political goal you like, and I think you are willing to be very flexible in choosing what standard of judicial review judges should use based on what political goal you like. Oh, get fucked. Most of the shit you say about liberals in general, liberals on this board, most of the people in this thread, whatever, fine. You were always an asshole; now you’ve lost your god-damned mind. You should be paying tuition to **Richard Parker** for his posts in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/464 "2014-07-23T16:20:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > \*\* > Chevron Deference\*\* > [Chevron deference | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference) > > OK, so its not about needless respect for corporate running dog jackals of the ruling class. Good! “Unreasonable”. Now, there’s a crystal clear word if ever there was one! 😉 But I think in this case, it’s not “unreasonable” to interpret the actions of the agency per the government’s position. However… what if the administration changes, and offers the opposite interpretation? Would that be deemed “unreasonable”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/465 "2014-07-23T16:21:19Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Oh, get fucked. Most of the shit you say about liberals in general, liberals on this board, most of the people in this thread, whatever, fine. > > You were always an asshole; now you’ve lost your god-damned mind. You should be paying tuition to **Richard Parker** for his posts in this thread. Don’t hold back, Jimmy. Let it all out!! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/466 "2014-07-23T16:29:27Z")
Nobody puts **Richard Parker** in a corner! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/467 "2014-07-23T16:30:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > his law degree! Assumes facts not in evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/468 "2014-07-23T16:32:03Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m sure there were people in the runup to the 2004 election who talked big about how Bush was going to lose, because we really really wanted him to lose and were sure he DESERVED to lose, without actually honestly thinking that it was certain to happen. Hitting that person with a rhetorical stick until he or she agreed to moderate his or her language to more accurately reflect wishes vs certainties seems like a bit of a silly use of time, but hey, if you enjoy it… (Although, again, your language about certainty about SC decisions in this very thread is falling into that very same trap.) Why is it a silly use of time? What happens here is that everyone says it, everyone agrees with it, and then reality happens. It’s like the possibly-apocryphal story of Pauline Kael’s reaction to the news that Nixon won against McGovern in one of the biggest landslides in American memory: “How can he have won? Nobody I know voted for him.” And then on the heels of that comes the rationalizations. Since nobody you know could have ever predicted such a farcical result, it must be the subject of partisan allegiance and bias. According to the SDMB, Hobby Lobby didn’t get decided because the RFRA and the Dictionary Act clearly and unambiguously say, “Any person whose religious exercise is burdened gets the protection of this law, and by the way, ‘person’ means corporations too.” No, no – it happened because there are five Catholic males on the Court who hate women. And this decision is going to be subject to the same treatment. You all will assure each other that the law’s “intent” and “overall purpose” are more important than the plain meaning of the actual words Congress passed, and then when the Supreme Court smacks you in the face with reality, it will be because they are five racists who want Obama to fail, and all evil inhuman monsters who enjoy seeing poor people suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/469 "2014-07-23T16:37:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > However… what if the administration changes, and offers the opposite interpretation? Would that be deemed “unreasonable”? Very good point. Even if the Administration wins this case, as I think they will, the next Republican in the White House very well might do what you suggest if the holding of this case relies on deference to the agency. So this thread might end up getting a lot of bumping in the next five years. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think nobody paid attention to them at all. People did not anticipate that they would come into existance, at least in a big way, and did not consistently try to make sure the law would “make sense” if there ended up being a bunch of them. > > IOW, I think if someone would have pointed out to the people writing the law “hey, you know you left out the federal exchanges, and you never know, maybe some states won’t make exchanges and the federal exchanges won’t be eligible for subsidies”, I think it’s likely that they would have amended the language. But no one did and the language was not amended. I think if you look at the draft bills from which the final bill was made it is pretty obvious what happened. They grafted on the idea of the federally-run exchanges to language from the bill that just talked about state exchanges. They thought it was sufficient to say that the federal exchange is the same as the state exchange, so they didn’t bother to change all the other references to the state exchanges. Because of the context, they did not expect someone to argue that “established by the State” excluded the federal step-in exchanges, even though that argument is really obvious in retrospect. But none of that history has really been the basis for any of the opinions upholding the subsidies. They have reasoned that the other language in various parts of the statute renders the statute as a whole ambiguous (at worst), and that in that scenario the agency wins. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Weird that you did not similarly object to RP doing the exact same thing in the very post Bricker was responding to. Could almost lead one to speculate about your own motivations 🙂 I think there was a lot more basis for what I said about **Bricker** than what he said about me. But I agree that speculation about other’s motives does nothing to further this discussion. I withdraw my speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/470 "2014-07-23T16:41:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The problem is that this is a really bad case for you to be using to advance that campaign. > > I agree with you that judges shouldn’t be making free-form social policy and I agree that many posters on this board have wrong-headed views about the judiciary. > > But this case is not an example of that. You apparently think the statute is crystal clear, and only judicial activist could see it any other way. But it isn’t clear. It’s ugly, and contradictory, and ambiguous. And Chevron deference should mean that the Administration wins, even if you don’t account for legislative purpose (and if you do, the answer is only more obvious). Chevron step one, or Chevron step 2? I ask because Judge Friedman’s opinion below has the government winning at Chevron step 1, unambiguous language, but your new best friend Judge Edwards’s dissent says Chevron step 2, reasonable interpretation of ambiguous language. And the Fourth Circuit found that as well: ambiguous language, reasonable interpretation. > [@](#): > > This isn’t true, and I’d like to think you’re just angry and don’t really believe it. I stated the proper standard for evaluating this case before the district court even decided it and every jurist to hear the case so far has agreed with my statement of the standard. Yes. You’re right. I was angry, and it wasn’t true. You’re arguing the law. But while your argument of the standard is correct, your view of the ambiguity is not. > [@](#): > > As much as you would like it to be, the disagreement between the parties in this case is not about whether language trumps purpose or whether the text trumps social policy. It is how best to read an unclear statute. Or, more precisely, whether the agency tasked with reading it has offered one of many possible reasonable readings. No – if that were true, then the Fourth Circuit would be correct. The statute is not unclear, in any reasonable sense. Its commands are crystal clear. They just produce a result that isn’t what ACA proponents now want. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/471 "2014-07-23T16:43:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think if you look at the draft bills from which the final bill was made it is pretty obvious what happened. Can you provide a bit more detail on how it’s obvious? > [@](#): > > They grafted on the idea of the federally-run exchanges to language from the bill that just talked about state exchanges. They thought it was sufficient to say that the federal exchange is the same as the state exchange, so they didn’t bother to change all the other references to the state exchanges. How difficult would it have been to have actually changed the language? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/472 "2014-07-23T16:44:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Unreasonable”. Now, there’s a crystal clear word if ever there was one! 😉 > > But I think in this case, it’s not “unreasonable” to interpret the actions of the agency per the government’s position. > > However… what if the administration changes, and offers the opposite interpretation? Would that be deemed “unreasonable”? Hey, that’s a good question. If this is Chevron Step 2, and President Perry appoints a new IRS Commissioner on January 20th, 2016, and on January 22nd the IRS announces no subsidies for federal exchange purposes… would the IRS still be acting legally? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/473 "2014-07-23T16:46:53Z")
Elizabeth Warren is going to change her name to Perry? Anyway, if she chooses to re-interpret the statute, it’ll be up to Congress to sue her straight. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/474 "2014-07-23T16:48:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Chevron step one, or Chevron step 2? > > I ask because Judge Friedman’s opinion below has the government winning at Chevron step 1, unambiguous language, but your new best friend Judge Edwards’s dissent says Chevron step 2, reasonable interpretation of ambiguous language. And the Fourth Circuit found that as well: ambiguous language, reasonable interpretation. Where is this “new best friend” bit coming from? Have I referenced Edward’s dissent? I don’t think I’ve even read it yet. I think there’s an OK case for resolving this at step 1 in the Administration’s favor. But I think that, at worst, it should get resolved in their favor at step 2. The latter is obviously a more conservative approach. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/475 "2014-07-23T16:50:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hey, that’s a good question. > > If this is Chevron Step 2, and President Perry appoints a new IRS Commissioner on January 20th, 2016, and on January 22nd the IRS announces no subsidies for federal exchange purposes… would the IRS still be acting legally? This is possibly OT, but there is no way that will happen. The Republicans might cheer a legal ruling that will allow the ACA to be undermined with themselves hiding behind legal arguments, but if an alternative interepretation survived SCOTUS review and then a Republican president pulled the rug out from under millions of people based on what would be an arbitrary alternative explanation, they would get killed. Not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/476 "2014-07-23T16:51:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > ISTM that there’s an excluded middle here. > > I personally am very skeptical of the notion that federal exchanges were deliberately excluded. But I don’t think they were intended to be included and left out through an oversight either. I think nobody paid attention to them at all. People did not anticipate that they would come into existance, at least in a big way, and did not consistently try to make sure the law would “make sense” if there ended up being a bunch of them. > > IOW, I think if someone would have pointed out to the people writing the law “hey, you know you left out the federal exchanges, and you never know, maybe some states won’t make exchanges and the federal exchanges won’t be eligible for subsidies”, I think it’s likely that they would have amended the language. But no one did and the language was not amended. I agree entirely that this is the most likely interpretation of what happened. > [@](#): > > I am not a legal scholar so I don’t know what the legal approach is in such cases. But I would personally prefer that laws were required to be executed as actually written and passed, and not as the framers and signers would have written it had they thought more about it. So, to return to a previous example I gave… there’s a bill to raise taxes on imported apples. Congress debates it. Eventually it passes. In all of the debate, everyone believes it’s about apples, talks about apples, input is given from apple pressure groups on both sides, etc. A while after the law is passed, someone notices that the technical language of the bill mentions 5 latin names for the 5 main varietals of apples (I’m making that up for this hypothetical), except that one of them is wrong and is actually a latin name for a varietal of fig. So… do you believe that there are now taxes on 4 of the 5 varietals of apples and one of figs? That’s clearly a more extreme and clear case than the actual case under discussion, but as long as your position is not 100% absolute, then it’s just a matter of degree, not of absolutes. > [@](#): > > Weird that you did not similarly object to RP doing the exact same thing in the very post Bricker was responding to. Could almost lead one to speculate about your own motivations 🙂 If you’re referring to this: > [@](#): > > I get it, Bricker. This is about tribe for you. The Republicans have been attacked. The Catholics have been attacked. You must avenge them in this den of loopy-headed liberals. You’ve made that very clear. Then it’s not really a fair comparison, for two reasons: (1) It’s a direct response to Bricker suddenly bringing up “wailing about how Catholic men are evil” in post 441, when Richard Parker had generally politely been arguing purely about legalistic things (2) To the extent that it’s being rude and obnoxious and bringing up outside irrelevancies (and clearly there’s an extent to which it is), it’s just questioning Bricker’s MOTIVES, not his ACTIONS. It’s not accusing Bricker of having a double standard, it’s just accusing him of caring MORE and arguing with more vitriol in this case, because he feels attacked. That’s a much less serious accusation than Bricker claiming that RP’s entire position is based purely on partisanship. That said, I’ve never claimed that I am 100% objective in how I direct my posting energy, and Bricker and I have discussed that phenomenon at great length in many other threads. Edited to add: At this point both Bricker and RP have backed off their personal attacks (credit to both of them), so it’s probably better to let that side tangent drop. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/477 "2014-07-23T16:55:26Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Can you provide a bit more detail on how it’s obvious? How difficult would it have been to have actually changed the language? The language about the subsidy calculation at issue in this thread “established by the State…” first appears in the October 19, 2009 Chairman’s Mark (i.e., draft) bill submitted for the consideration of the Senate Finance Committee, S. 1796. That bill does not contain the provision empowering the Secretary to establish an exchange. The Senate Health Committee bill is where the federal exchanges come from. It calls exchanges “Gateways”–a term not used in PPACA. The federal gateways were expressly to receive subsidies. For the final bill, the language setting up the Gateways was put in the section establishing the federal fallback, but none of the other language was changed. That’s why I think it’s obvious that the language wasn’t intended to distinguish state vs. federal, because they used the same language when there was no state vs. federal. As a practical matter, I don’t know how hard it would have been to just go re-write all the cross-references. I suspect that part of the Committee or informal deliberation process involved sort of signing off on sections that were approved, and maybe it would have taken more time to go back and open them back up to edits. But that’s entirely speculation on my part. It was clearly a situation in which a little time spent avoiding any ambiguities would have avoided a lot of headaches. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/478 "2014-07-23T16:56:00Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > That said, I’ve never claimed that I am 100% objective in how I direct my posting energy, and Bricker and I have discussed that phenomenon at great length in many other threads. Yes. **Max** is a staunch defender of accuracy and fairness in the posts of others. He has started this campaign with me. When I’m fixed, he may move on. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/479 "2014-07-23T16:57:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Can you provide a bit more detail on how it’s obvious?How difficult would it have been to have actually changed the language? Given the implacable nature of the obstructionist opposition, I think you know the answer. [Prof. Gluck explains:](http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-congress-works-and-obamacare.html) > [@](#): > > What is relevant here is that the ACA is a very badly drafted statute. And it’s badly drafted for a simple reason that turns out to be important to understanding how the pending litigation should be resolved: Because Senator Ted Kennedy died in the middle of the legislative process and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown, the statute never went through the usual legislative process, including the usual legislative clean-up process. Instead, because the Democrats lost their 60th filibuster-preventing vote, the version that had passed the Senate before Brown took office, which everyone initially had thought would be a mere first salvo, had to effectively serve as the final version, unchangeable by the House, because nothing else could get through the Senate. In the end, the statute was synthesized across both chambers by an alternative process, called “reconciliation,” which allows for only limited changes but avoids a filibuster under Congress’s rules. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/480 "2014-07-23T16:59:19Z")
I believe that this particular ham-handed drafting happened before the final Senate bill passed, however, **ElvisL1ves**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=25)