# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/501 "2014-07-23T18:19:23Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Nobody puts **Richard Parker** in a corner! His father put him a corner once.ONCE! ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/502 "2014-07-23T18:23:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At best, this sentence contemplates that Congress may at some point authorize subsidies. And when it does, this bullet requires notification of any advance payments. Well, we’ve gone in circles on that point. I don’t think that’s at all a reasonable reading of that section, much less so obvious and clear that it is unreasonable for the IRS to read the section as endorsing subsidies. I don’t think there’s much more to say on that point. Though I would reiterate my question to you about whether Congress had ever previously laid such a detailed foundation for future lawmaking–that at the time would be a complete time-waster for all involved–instead of just making appropriate changes if that future law ever passed. I’m not aware of that ever having happened, and I very much doubt it has. It doesn’t make any sense. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/503 "2014-07-23T18:32:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You imply that I’m ignoring the “exact words,” when in fact I’m pointing to other words that might make you change the interpretation of those words. You seem not to be able to understand that distinction, which really goes to the heart of this whole debate. I can’t tell if this is just a rhetorical strategy on your part, or if you really do not understand this very fundamental point. You are pointing to other words that might mean one thing and might mean something else, and stacking up against words that mean only one thing. > [@](#): > > Because it doesn’t make sense of the rest of that same section. Why prohibit incarcerated persons from being qualified individuals if that does not thereby prevent them from using the Exchange to get health insurance? It prevents them from being state exchange customers. And the federal exchange has the flexibility to accept incarcerated persons. Maybe the feds will decide Sheriff Arapio isn’t providing decent care and use the federal exchange to help out. Makes perfect sense. > [@](#): > > Your view is that there was some vague threat that non-incarcerated U.S. citizens would be barred from participating in the exchanges, so Congress sought to specially protect them? That just doesn’t make a lick of sense. No – but part of the _raison d’etre_ is that EVERYONE was eligible, as opposed to the mean old pre-ACA days when you had to grovel and beg to be eligible. The “vague” threat was the prior status quo. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/504 "2014-07-23T18:35:00Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Well, we’ve gone in circles on that point. I don’t think that’s at all a reasonable reading of that section, much less so obvious and clear that it is unreasonable for the IRS to read the section as endorsing subsidies. And I think it’s a perfectly reasonable reading. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there’s much more to say on that point. Though I would reiterate my question to you about whether Congress had ever previously laid such a detailed foundation for future lawmaking–that at the time would be a complete time-waster for all involved–instead of just making appropriate changes if that future law ever passed. I’m not aware of that ever having happened, and I very much doubt it has. It doesn’t make any sense. No – but this law is ground-breaking in many ways. Congress never before mandated that the general run of mankind purchase a product, but that’s the intent here anyway. How do I know? 'Cause that’s what it says. If the Court rules against my view, I will abjectly apologize for being wrong, and acknowledge that the correct reading of the law accounts for the unexpressed but evident intent. If the Court rules for my view, I will expect that you ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/505 "2014-07-23T18:35:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You are pointing to other words that might mean one thing and might mean something else, and stacking up against words that mean only one thing. No, I’m not. What is ambiguous about the reference to incarcerated individuals not being qualified individuals, for example? > [@Bricker](#): > > It prevents them from being state exchange customers. And the federal exchange has the flexibility to accept incarcerated persons. Maybe the feds will decide Sheriff Arapio isn’t providing decent care and use the federal exchange to help out. Makes perfect sense. How does it prevent them from being state exchange customers but not federal exchange customers? And are you being serious here? Or was that last part tongue-in-cheek? I honestly can’t tell. > [@Bricker](#): > > No – but part of the _raison d’etre_ is that EVERYONE was eligible, as opposed to the mean old pre-ACA days when you had to grovel and beg to be eligible. The “vague” threat was the prior status quo. So you agree that your view is that this section is just providing special protection to non-incarcerated U.S. citizens and lawful residents, just in case the feds decided only to open the exchange to illegal immigrants and convicts? ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/506 "2014-07-23T18:38:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the Court rules against my view, I will abjectly apologize for being wrong, and acknowledge that the correct reading of the law accounts for the unexpressed but evident intent. > > If the Court rules for my view, I will expect that you I’ll probably do what I did last time the Supreme Court validated my legal view over yours, in the case of preemption on the Arizona immigration law. [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15204981&postcount=29) my wild crowing when that happened, in full: > [@](#): > > If three justices agree with your position, there’s not much room for bragging about legal acumen on either side. It was close enough to warrant certiorari and to split the court, after all. So while I believe this bet has technically won me certain bragging rights, I choose not to exercise them at this time. ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/507 "2014-07-23T18:43:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’ll probably do what I did last time the Supreme Court validated my legal view over yours, in the case of preemption on the Arizona immigration law. [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15204981&postcount=29) my wild crowing when that happened, in full: Well… you may recall I was not exactly touting preemption as a slam-dunk; I think I said at the time that preemption was “wrong but tenable.” Had the Court in that case handed down some EP bullshit, THEN I would have worn the hairshirt. So that case is a better call of yours, no question – but I did not oppose your view with any kind of ferocity. I’m more curious what you’ll say if the Supremes go the way the DC Circuit panel did. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/508 "2014-07-23T18:49:12Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > In fact, the more people like you die horribly, the better off we, collectively, are. [Moderating] Telling other posters they should die is a violation of board rules. Don’t do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/509 "2014-07-23T18:51:46Z")
I’ll be surprised, but not very shocked. Perhaps the same as you were in the Arizona case. As I said upthread, I’d put the odds at 60% for Halbig et al. losing. I’ll be more shocked if the Supreme Court just endorses all of Griffith’s reasoning, which I think was quite poor. I would expect a more well-reasoned opinion out of Roberts or Kennedy. Instead of coming up with what are, in my view, wildly nonsensical readings of the “qualified individuals” section and other sections, I would expect the Supreme Court opinion to just say that none of those other sections is clear enough to trump the plain language of the subsidy calculation. And I would also be more shocked if the Supreme Court endorsed the “incentives” view of the purpose of that provision. Finally, I would be more shocked if a majority opinion for Halbig won more than five votes. Those things would very much surprise me. Additionally, I simply don’t regard the question here to be the one you think it is. In my view, the question is whether this statute is ambiguous (in either direction) and if so whether the IRS view is reasonable. I don’t think either side is arguing, as you put it, for enforcing the law’s “unexpressed but evident intent” over it’s plain meaning. So I certainly don’t expect any opinion from the Supreme Court to endorse that view, which I think is legally untenable. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/510 "2014-07-23T19:09:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If President Perry orders the IRS to not grant the subsidy in 2016, how do you feel about the legality of that order? > > In other words, are you saying this is ambiguous enough that we should defer to the IRS, or that this is ambiguous enough that we should defer to always giving the subsidy? If we simplify things to three possible supreme court rulings: (1) no subsidies for federal exchanges (ie, you win) (2) subsidies for federal exchanges are up to the IRS and the executive branch (3) always subsidies for federal exchanges None of those three outcomes strikes me as outrageous or impossible, given my fragmentary knowledge of the situation and my limited knowledge of law. The thing I object to in this thread is YOUR position that (1) is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY the only correct ruling, and anyone who disagrees just believes in using handwaving pleas for social justice instead of respect for the law, yada yada yada. So to answer your question, if the supreme court issues a ruling which is very clearly (2), and a Republican wins in 2016, and orders the IRS to stop providing subsidies for federal exchanges, well, I will acknowledge that it’s legal for that president to do so. However, I will view it as an evil and unethical action, barring some seriously mitigating circumstances. ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/511 "2014-07-23T19:27:33Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I don’t think that’s always an easy line to draw, and I think reasonable people can disagree about precisely where it should be drawn, what factors should be used when considering where to draw it, how to apply this when the question is how a federal agency should act when given instructions it finds to be ambiguous, and so forth. I don’t know if it’s always an easy line to draw, but it seems easy for me in this particular case. YMMV. You’ve suggested a case of an obvious mistake in language. But how about this case: Suppose a legislature passes some law involving auto safety or traffic rules, and autos are specifically defined as 4 wheeled machines etc. (Motorcycles are not mentioned or excluded.) And then motorcycles become more common and a regulatory agency announces that their interpretation is that the law also applies to motorcycles as well. And the logic is that the rationale behind the law applies every bit as much to motorcycles as it does to cars, and based on the stated intentions of the law’s writers and signers there’s no conceivable reason for them to have excluded motorcycles. So they probably just lifted the language involving autos from some other law or section of this law but really meant to include motorcycles as well. Do you buy it? One reason this is a sensitive issue is that there has been a lot of what I would consider abuse in this area. [And one reason it’s more of an issue for conservatives is because - and perhaps I’m biased here - it seems to me that liberal judges are more apt to view the text of the law as giving them expansive powers to act in accordance with what they consider the spirit of the law. (One particular example that sticks in my head is the Florida Supreme Court’s rulings on the Bush vs Gore case.) So that conservatives always have to win twice - first win legislatively, and then win in court - while liberals only need to win either in the legislature or in the courts. (Now, with Obama having effectively seized significant legislative power for himself, the deck is even more stacked.) I’m aware that conservative judges have sometimes overturned liberal laws but ISTM that this tends to be less likely than the reverse, FWIW, and this also seems to be supported by liberal legal philosophies as expressed in this thread and elsewhere, e.g. CLS. Again, YMMV.] ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/512 "2014-07-23T19:49:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know if it’s always an easy line to draw, but it seems easy for me in this particular case. YMMV. > > You’ve suggested a case of an obvious mistake in language. But how about this case: > > Suppose a legislature passes some law involving auto safety or traffic rules, and autos are specifically defined as 4 wheeled machines etc. (Motorcycles are not mentioned or excluded.) And then motorcycles become more common and a regulatory agency announces that their interpretation is that the law also applies to motorcycles as well. And the logic is that the rationale behind the law applies every bit as much to motorcycles as it does to cars, and based on the stated intentions of the law’s writers and signers there’s no conceivable reason for them to have excluded motorcycles. So they probably just lifted the language involving autos from some other law or section of this law but really meant to include motorcycles as well. Do you buy it? But that’s not a good analogy either, unless you have a law which, while being drafted, started out talking about cars, and then had a bunch of stuff added on about motorcycles, and in some parts of the law appears to want to treat motorcycles and cars identically, but in a few key provisions has language that only specifically mentions cars. In a case like that, I don’t think it takes judicial activism or soft-headed liberal thinking to interpret the law as intending to apply equally to cars and motorcycles all over. I don’t mind if you disagree with me about ACA as long as you don’t think that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because of partisan blindness. > [@](#): > > So that conservatives always have to win twice - first win legislatively, and then win in court I certainly do NOT agree with that in the slightest, but that’s a topic for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/513 "2014-07-23T20:12:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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**. I’ll take those 1000:1 odds that your assertion (helpfully bolded by me) is incorrect. I’ll bet you $1000 at those odds that you’re wrong. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/514 "2014-07-23T20:22:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll give you the 1000:1, any size bet you name. > > I’m also reasonably certain of the Supreme Court result, although not 1000:1 certain. > > But I won’t give odds. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’ll take those 1000:1 odds that your assertion (helpfully bolded by me) is incorrect. I’ll bet you $1000 at those odds that you’re wrong. Bo, you might want to establish that you and Bricker define “odds” the same way. His usage looks a tad eccentric. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/515 "2014-07-23T20:22:33Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’ll take those 1000:1 odds that your assertion (helpfully bolded by me) is incorrect. I’ll bet you $1000 at those odds that you’re wrong. No. Where did I ever offer 1000:1 on that prediction? ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/516 "2014-07-23T20:26:45Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’ll take those 1000:1 odds that your assertion (helpfully bolded by me) is incorrect. I’ll bet you $1000 at those odds that you’re wrong. I see… a little creative editing on your part. You cut out the prior sentence: > [@Bricker](#): > > I was certain of the DC panel ruling. > > I’ll give you the 1000:1, any size bet you name. Much like Congress, my intent can be divined by what I say. I’m giving 1000:1 odds on the outcome of the DC Circuit’s panel ruling. (Yes – the one we already know about). When it comes to the future events: > [@](#): > > I’m also reasonably certain of the Supreme Court result, \*\*although not 1000:1 certain. \*\* > > But I won’t give odds. One big goal in betting is winning. Why didn’t you quote those lines, Snowboarder? ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/517 "2014-07-23T20:46:03Z")
I’m still unclear how it is reasonable to argue that a law, the purpose of which is to make health care insurance affordable for all Americans, must be interpreted to read that said insurance should not be made affordable for all Americans. ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/518 "2014-07-23T20:47:37Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But that’s not a good analogy either, unless you have a law which, while being drafted, started out talking about cars, and then had a bunch of stuff added on about motorcycles, and in some parts of the law appears to want to treat motorcycles and cars identically, but in a few key provisions has language that only specifically mentions cars. In a case like that, I don’t think it takes judicial activism or soft-headed liberal thinking to interpret the law as intending to apply equally to cars and motorcycles all over. I agree that my example was more straightforward than this one. But I think it’s fundamentally more similar to this case than your case with the apples, in which it’s just a language error, and I was using it to illustrate the principle. > [@](#): > > I don’t mind if you disagree with me about ACA as long as you don’t think that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because of partisan blindness. In general the only reason anyone ever disagrees with me about anything is because of partisan blindness. If my wife disagrees with me about which end to squeeze the toothpaste tube from it’s because of partisan blindness on her part. But I don’t think this is relevant here. As I noted earlier (post #461) “_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._” My comments here are not about how a judge should rule in this specific case. That depends on what the accepted approach is in comparable cases WRT non-partisan issues, and I don’t know. My focus - to the extent that I’m advocating anything - is about what I think the proper role of non-elected judges should be in interpreting versus creating law, in cases which are comparable to this one as regards to the legal facts. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/519 "2014-07-23T20:49:47Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > I’m still unclear how it is reasonable to argue that a law, the purpose of which is to make health care insurance affordable for all Americans, must be interpreted to read that said insurance should not be made affordable for all Americans. Because Obama is black. ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/520 "2014-07-23T20:53:05Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > I’m still unclear how it is reasonable to argue that a law, the purpose of which is to make health care insurance affordable for all Americans, must be interpreted to read that said insurance should not be made affordable for all Americans. Because the law makes an effort to define, specifically and in detail, just precisely how it goes about making insurance available to all Americans. And one of those precise definitions allows subsidies to state exchanges, but none of them allow subsidies to federal exchanges. Tell me something, **sciurophobic**. How did you feel about the Hobby Lobby decision? I ask because the purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. The law says that, explicitly. Federal law also says the chapter about religious freedom should be “… construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” How did you think the Hobby Lobby case should have been decided? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=27)