Understood. He’s not saying it in all cases; only where there’s ambiguity. Problem is that there seems to very frequently be a lot of ambiguity, judging by the frequency of legal challenges to all sorts of laws. So as a practical matter it would have the impact I describe.
That is basically step 2 of Chevron, i.e. the law of the land and how ambiguity is properly resolved. That can be avoided by unambiguous language while drafting laws. In other words, John Mace is not saying anything that contradicts Chevron. Your criticism of his post is misplaced.
And if the IRS is implementing a law in a manner that is arguably justifiable, but not what a particular Congress prefers, Congress can also pass another law, hopefully better written, saying that poor people should lose their health care.
The saw cuts both ways.
It sounds like you’re using “ambiguity” to mean ambiguous language. That happens to be a big part of the discussion in this particular case. But I meant “ambiguity” in the sense of ambiguity as to how to apply the law to the case at hand, which is far more common, and to which the same general principle would apply.
Who did? Typically, if not universally, such dreary projects as reading a bill is handed off to staffers, who can do penance for their sins of ambition. It would seem that none of them caught it. Or should we believe that Republican staffers were fully aware of it, but their employers decided to keep quiet about it and lay the groundwork for a massive “Gotcha!”?
How about Mitch McConnell, who famously expanded the limits of truthiness when he swore up and down to his victims that their state run exchange (Kynect) would be unaltered and undamaged when he tore out Obamacare “root and branch”? A proud moment for him, do you think?
The millions of people who would be adversely affected by this legislative sabotage, who are they most likely to blame? I’m guessing the bulk of that blame will fall on Republicans, adding a whole 'nother layer of enmity to those who so richly deserve it. A laudable result, perhaps, but the cost in human misery is far too high. For me, that is, for others it appears that the outpouring of suffering is just icing on the cock.
And excuse, but “rule of law” is totally an abstract concept, as abstract as n-dimensional geometry or string theory. Like “human rights”, we hold those truths to be self-evident, it is an agreement to believe, a secular faith. Tyrants also believe in the “rule of law”, so long as the law is them.
Everybody’s assuming this will involve Chevron, which may not necessarily be the case. There was an article the other day about on justia about federalism potentially being involved here.
The argument goes something like this: if the plaintiff’s interpretation is assumed to be correct, then the states were not given fair notice when they established their exchanges that their citizens could not get tax credits and therefore may not be constitutional. If the court rules such a reading is unconstitutional then, according to long established court precedence, the court should see if there’s an acceptable alternative interpretation that does not violate the Constitution.
The plaintiffs here, sponsored by Cato, Adler and Ass., are being pretty sleazy and cynical in their argument, they insist their interpretation of the law is merely upholding the law as written yet the powers behind the suit fully concede it is meant to send the law into a death spiral.
There’s another possibility I’ve been trying to wrap my head around since it’s complicated and would require some fancy legal maneuvering: that if the law should be interpreted strictly and to the last letter (as the plaintiffs insist) there could be an out. It’s technically complicated and is done by a loophole by letting states that have established exchanges allow out of state customers to enroll on their exchange and then be directed to another exchange (or said state could offer out-of-state coverage). Google “State Exchange Two Step” if you’re confused, I know I am a bit. It seems quite shady, but then again those who live by the typo die by the typo.
Gotta wonder what the “professional” Republican thinks of all this. As compared to the ideologue, the guy who isn’t going to be up for election. The risks and tactics here don’t look that promising, looks more like a Leninist plot to stir up the masses by inflicting pain.
This will not get the Republicans any more voters, they’ve pretty much got all they are likely to, and struggle mostly to keep them in line. They could shrug off the ACA as “Well, we lost that one, but we are still here to fight against abortion and for Jesus, so vote for us!” Won’t make them any new friends, but won’t make them any new enemies.
But this will. Ten to one, the people who lose their health insurance…who’s* children* lose their health insurance…are gonna blame the Republicans. Net result, a whole lot more committed voters against Republicans and no gain in converts.
As a lefty, if I were a cynical Leninist and committed to political advantage regardless of its affect on innocent people, I would love this shit! If this goes forward, the chance that it will blow up in the Republicans collective face is huge. But, as I said, the human cost is far, far too high.
But if it proves inevitable, I will take some comfort in watching the Republicans scramble for cover. Cold comfort, to be sure, but comfort, nonetheless.
No, it’s not “sleazy.” They don’t like the law, they want it to die, and this is a valid attack on the law.
Disagreeing with you about the value of a particular public policy is not “sleazy.”
Except that the argument is that when a law is plain, agencies should not delve into what is a “justifiable” alternate interpretation.
I agree that it’s reasonable to conclude that the law allows subsidies for state exchanges. However, what proponents of the law seem to want is for SCOTUS to rule for the administration because the alternative is disastrous. But it’s only disastrous because the Republicans control Congress now. I just do not think that SCOTUS should be influenced by the results of elections. It is not their problem that this law caused the Democrats to be driven from office. It should neither prejudice them against the law, nor make them feel as if they have to uphold it. Thus my point of rule of law being superior to rule of men. “Rule of men” would be basically the justices deciding the law based on what happened in the three elections since it passed rather than on the merits.
If the Democrats still controlled Congress this case would be a minor, technical case that no one would care about.
“If you like your plan, you can’t keep it.”
What the flying fuck? You’re against democracy? Of course rule of men is good. That’s the foundation our entire country. Rule of man created those fucking laws.
The idea that humans have the right to self govern is the foundation of our country. If you think that is bad, then there’s no point in ever debating you at all, as you completely disagree with what our country is based upon.
I think you misunderstand what rule of law vs. rule of men is. Rule of law is essential to democracy, not antithetical to it.
The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to arbitrary decisions by individual government officials
It’s sleazy because they are using extra legislative process to do it. It passed–that means it’s the will of the people. The Court is not supposed to be used for political purposes. It’s purpose is just to clarify the law. The whole thing is an attempt to circumvent democracy by having some guys appointed for life legislate from the bench.
If they don’t like it, they can pass another law to stop it. They should not be able to use the Court to do it for them. It’s an abuse of the system.
The fact that their intent is to nullify the law–and not because of some constitutional problem where it shouldn’t have been enacted for the first place–shows their absolute sleaziness.
At least the other ACA challenge was constitutional. This one is petty bullshit. A valid interpretation exists that allows the law to exist. The Court should err on the side of allowing the legislative process to work. Not use technicalities in order to accomplish a political purpose.
This is not a legitimate challenge. It is a search for a loophole.
“If you* don’t* like your plan, but its all you can get, you still can’t keep it.”
“Okay, okay: whether or not you like your plan, you can’t keep it.”
See, this right here is the conversation that should’ve played out before it was passed.
So, challenges to the Voter ID law in Texas under the Voter Rights Act, even though Texas’ interpretation allowed the Voter ID law to exist – were they also sleazy?
I did not realize it was a term of art. Sorry for the accusation.
But then I would argue you are attempting to apply it where it doesn’t apply. We’re not dealing with arbitrary desires of a ruling class. We are dealing with considering the consequences in order to determine the legitimate application of a law. Rule of law does not necessarily mean pharisaical devotion to the text of the law.
My argument is that, if there is a valid interpretation that does not require the Court to alter a law, then the Court should not alter a law. The Court should assume that the legislative process is valid.
Bricker’s idea that the court should mercilessly attack the law and jump on any hole as an adversary to the legislative process is what I find abhorrent. That is actual legislating from the bench, not what he claims it is.
Gasp! Bricker has unmasked another flagrant example of liberal hypocrisy!
That was the intent of the law, and the fact that organizations used a loophole to get around it is why I have such utter contempt for them, too. I’d have so much more respect for the legal system if it worked on legislative intent.
I do, however, fault the administration for apparently not trying to fix that problem after saying they would. I actually am one of the few liberals who does not really like the ACA because of this. My sister was screwed by it, as they forced her $3000 deductible to cover doctor’s visits, just when she was moving out and having to budget heavily. Hence, she can’t afford basic medical care. The plans on the exchange also all work this way up until she pays around 1/3 of her wages.
But I also realize that effectively repealing it would only make things worse for no benefit. It’s not like plans will go back to their pre-ACA forms. Businesses don’t voluntarily give more than they have to. But all those people who got coverage when they didn’t have it before will lose out.
That’s what bugs me about the Republican position. The bad consequences of the ACA are effectively permanent. Repealing it serves no purpose but a political one, of saying you don’t like it. It would only remove the things people like without fixing what they hate.
You want to fix the problems, create laws that fix what people dislike about the ACA. Stop trying to destroy it because it was voted in by Democrats.