Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

I'm willing to wager that the Roberts Court already met its annual quota of stupid-ass decisions.

I'm afraid there's no such quota in light of recent developments. The conservative bloc of the court is relentless it seems.

Besides, if this really does go to the SCOTUS it'll probably take forever. Forever being right in time for the 2016 election. I wouldn't be surprised...

 

[benjipwns]

Get undistracted, damn you! I can't flood the world with enough dollars to blot out the sun if you're not firing on all cylinders.

Finally, a sensible global warming solution.

 

[benjipwns]

A major reason why I love my state is for its politics - fairly liberal without going overboard, and our representatives generally work in the interest of good government. The Democrats here don't get complacent or corrupt.

Somebody sure has egg on their face now!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/109076.php

The population of Mogadishu is moving to Minneapolis, through the miracle of chain immigration. I don’t know whether there is any limiting principle to this or whether all of Mogadishu will one day reside along the Mississippi, but in any event, the Somali influx is already impacting Minnesota politics.

Despite being “natural conservatives”–imagine what they must think of abortion and gay marriage!–the Somalis have so far been reliable Democratic voters. This has created one of this year’s most interesting local races, in which Phyllis Kahn, a left-wing Democrat who has represented her district in the Minnesota House of Representatives for 42 (!) years, is being challenged in a primary by one Mohamud Noor. Kahn has long enjoyed the perks of a Democratic insider, including the privilege of owning a $1 house on prime Minneapolis real estate. But so far, all of that seems to avail her little as she fights for her political life against Mr. Noor.

The race first came to widespread attention when a fight broke out between Kahn and Noor supporters at a precinct caucus. Next, in a historic first, a Democrat finally stumbled across voter fraud in Minnesota:

The Hennepin County attorney’s office is investigating whether a private mailbox center in Minneapolis’ Cedar-Riverside neighborhood has been improperly used as an address for more than 140 voters.

State records show that 419 Cedar Avenue S. has been used by some of the voters as far back as 2008. [Ed.: In other words, since Al Franken's 2008 campaign.]

No one lives at the address, which is a Somali-dominated commercial building housing several small businesses and a popular mail center.

The investigation reignites a long-running debate about voter fraud in Minnesota and is the latest flash point in the highly competitive race between Capitol stalwart Rep. Phyllis Kahn and Mohamud Noor, who would become the first Somali-American elected to the Legislature if elected. Kahn was denied the DFL endorsement in April due in part to Noor’s ability to turn out Somali supporters. An August primary will decide the fate of the race.

The Kahn campaign alleges that usage of the fake address has been orchestrated by the Noor campaign:

“The Kahn campaign has reason to believe that the Noor campaign has been behind the registrations of new voters at this address,” Rice writes in an email sent to Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, among others. “Further, we have reason to believe that many more, perhaps hundreds of people have been using 419 Cedar Avenue South as an address to register and vote in the Primary election on August 12, 2014 in the race between Kahn and Noor.

Kahn’s lawyer has filed a second complaint, too: Phyllis Kahn alleges election judge called her “old Jewish lady,” opponent “Muslim brother”:

One alleges that a Minneapolis elections judge named Fadmo called Kahn “an old Jewish Lady” while interpreting the primary ballot for a Somali man who was recently at City Hall to cast his absentee ballot. On the other hand, Fadmo characterized Noor as “our Muslim brother,” the complaint says.

Steve Sailor asks a reasonable question:

If the Somali voter passed the citizenship test, why isn’t he literate in English? Why does he need fellow Somali Fadmo to tell him which squiggle on the ballot represents “our Muslim brother” and which squiggle “an old Jewish lady?”

Such “irregularities” have been going on for a while, but they are only now coming to light and being reported in the local press. Why? Because a Democrat’s ox is being gored, and the Democrat in question has her lawyers on the case. In the meantime, we can all enjoy the spectacle as the Democratic Party’s internal contradictions try to resolve themselves.

George O'Har · Top Commenter · B C College
Slip-up here. You said 'chain immigration.' The correct term is 'family unification.' I suspect you are a bigot who hates children and families (sarc).

Jack Schiraldi · Top Commenter · Tempe, Arizona
Thanks George it makes us old veterans feel so warm when we can so easily identify the rats and traitors that will be rounded up when the Tribunals are finally seated in Gitmo. Our oath did not require an act of suicide. Your time is fleeting and we will have our revenge. We never forgot the 60's and have never forgiven Jane Fonda and the rest of your pinko allies.

 

[B-Dubs]

Somebody sure has egg on their face now!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/109076.php

Anyone else reporting this? Anyone that doesn't have an article like this?

I’m going to get in trouble for this post, but this Los Angeles Times story today caught my eye:

Intersex Fish Found in Pennsylvania Rivers Spur Search for Chemicals

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has begun an extensive sampling of chemical contaminants in response to the discovery of intersex fish in three of the state’s rivers, a department spokeswoman said. . .

Now frankly, I’m disturbed by the blatant hetero-normativity of Pennsylvania’s Dept. of Environmental Protection. How do we know that these asexual fish haven’t simply decided to be gender neutral “intersex” after a period of questioning? After all, that covers three of the letters of the semi-standard LBGTQIA universe. Why do we assume that this in-between condition is the result of contamination? How typically judgmental of the conspiracy of hetero-patriarchal oppression.

Just what kind of fish, by the way? Is it in all species, or just college-aged fish?

The US Geological Survey research said that two fish species, smallmouth bass and white sucker [cue Jon Stewart here] were exhibiting intersex characteristics due to exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals — hormones and hormone-mimicking chemicals that caused the male fish to produce eggs.

Hmm. I wonder whether the seemingly sharp rise in the number of aspiring transsexuals and in-betweeners in our midst might have an environmental cause? After all, we do hear a lot of worry from the environmental community about endocrine hormone disrupters. Thought experiment: imagine the mayhem on the Left if there were to emerge a full-scale conflict between the doctrines of unlimited liberation and self-definition that depend on the denial of (human) nature, and an environmental crusade to defend nature against subtle chemical effects. Sounds far-fetched? Maybe so, but the growing evidence of the lead-crime link suggests maybe it isn’t as far-fetched as we might think. This could be fun to watch.

Not the most reputable source for news

 

[benjipwns]

If you care about the actual story instead of the sane rational commentary:
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/265313621.html

 

[pigeon]

In regards to debt, tax credits are merely deferred taxes. The reality is most everyone will be paying for the subsidies anyway so they aren't actually saving all that money personally, and the rest they're deferring the taxes onto their grandchildren.

The government is using the subsidies in the exchanges to hide the actual cost of the plans they're forcing everyone to buy from massive private corporations.

Free trade is the preferable option, but 95+% of the planet opposes it, so Medicare for All is better because the government can then ration care severely.

See, this argument is way less creditable than the other one. It's easy to argue for all kinds of negative economic effects for the ACA. But what evidence do you have of these hypothetical negative effects?

 

[benjipwns]

What hypothetical? The 95% figure? I admit I didn't do any kind of polling but 99% seemed too on the nose.

 

[Metaphoreus]

ACA directed HHS to create rules. Its in the bill. This useless distinction drawing does nothing.

Yes congress can enact abusurd laws. But where is there ANY CLUE that was what they were doing. Every single thing points the opposite way. Only in alternate histories can people claim such things.

I'm not trying to make a broad point when I say that the contraceptive mandate was created by regulation rather than by statute. I just wanted to make sure that Diablos understood that it was created by regulation rather than by statute. (Valid regulations are as much "the law" as are statutes, so I'm not certain that Diablos meant the ACA itself created the contraceptive mandate, but I still decided to clarify.)

Regarding that second post, obviously Congress isn't going to state that it's enacting an absurd law. But the point is that it doesn't matter that a court thinks what Congress did is absurd (that's a policy judgment); what matters is that Congress did it. The statutory text supports the Halbig argument. The legislative history doesn't refute it (though, as I said, I don't find it compellingly in their favor, either). I don't put much stock in the amicus brief filed on behalf of Max Baucus et al., because it's a self-serving statement as to some of the amici and only represents the position of the few members of Congress on whose behalf the brief was filed, not the position of all those whose votes were necessary for the passage of the ACA. Again, the best evidence of Congressional intent is the text of the statute that Congress enacted.

(1) It becomes worthless in the sense that it will make health insurance that is currently affordable completely unaffordable to lower income individuals. It may not make it technically worthless, but from a practical standpoint in regards to how it actually helps individuals obtain and afford health insurance, depriving the federal exchange of subsidies would cripple the ACA's effectiveness (and you know this) and the industry.

(2) Yes, and?

(3) As it should be, and the ACA permits for the HHS to do this kind of thing. The SCOTUS ruling is borderline theocratic; even if you were to be of the opinion that HHS crossed the line in mandating birth control, the way the opinion is written ought to concern the hell out of any rational American who doesn't belong to a Southern Baptist megachurch.

(4) It's hard for me to understand the challengers' argument though. If you can admit that the law permits for a federally-run exchange with tax credits, but then go on to say it can only be a state-run exchange despite the fact that people are already benefiting from said federal exhange/subsidies, that in and of itself makes it hard for me to understand what the core of the argument is; the law and related subsidies are being employed as intended. It seems they are trying to point out a disconnect between the state-run and federal-run exchanges in the law's wording and how that then translates into how they are to operate, but there is enough stated in the ACA and IRC that appears to allow for the IRS to subsidize those on the federal exchange. With all due respect I am not even entirely sure of what you are trying to say.

I can't tell you step by step how I'm reaching any sort of conclusion because its very premise isn't really making a whole lot of sense to me, even with you explaining it. I'm trying to make sense out of what they're saying because when I read about the federal exchanges and IRC it seems to most certainly allow for the subsidies.

(1) Frank the Great was saying that the exchanges would be rendered worthless because doing so helped him show that adopting the Halbig challengers' interpretation of the law would violate two canons of construction. (Canons of construction are rules that courts use to interpret statutory text, particularly when the text itself can be interpreted in more than one way--i.e., when the text is ambiguous.) Those two rules are: (a) statutes should be interpreted so as to avoid absurd results; and (b) statutes should not be interpreted in a way that results in one provision being meaningless or unnecessary. So, he wasn't making an argument about the practical impact of adopting the challengers' interpretation, but about the canons that he believes counsel against adopting it.

But, regarding the practical effects, I don't know whether a loss for the government in Halbig would cripple the ACA, and I doubt that you do, either. This is because if the Halbig challengers are victorious, only those who are currently receiving subsidies on the federal exchange would be affected, not everyone who has purchased insurance through the federal exchange. I don't know how many people that is. I honestly don't even know what a court ruling in favor of the Halbig challengers would mean for the availability of subsidies on the federal exchange. A court could, conceivably, stay the execution of any order directing the IRS to stop offering the tax credits until next year, or even indefinitely.

(2) The way your comment was phrased seemed to indicate that you believed that state-run exchanges would offer state-tax credits, but not federal-tax credits, and that the federal exchanges would offer federal-tax credits, but not state-tax credits. That's wrong. If that's not what you intended, then good. Because you would have been wrong otherwise.

Spoiler

Which is bad.

(3) This kind of hyperbole isn't helpful. A theocracy is a system of government by divine guidance or the divinely guided. Hobby Lobby is nowhere close to such a system. The opinion wasn't based on religious teachings or guidance from God. It was based on guidance from Congress in the form of the RFRA, which was itself largely based on the Supreme Court's Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence prior to the 1990s. Religious exemptions from generally applicable laws don't make a theocracy or something similar to it (and I doubt a theocracy would even permit such religious exemptions). Instead, religious exemptions are a recognition that we live in a pluralistic society and, to the extent possible, the law should not present a choice between obeying the dictates of conscience and obeying the dictates of Congress.

(4) Let me try to simplify the Halbig argument to make it easier to discuss. Imagine a statute with three sections, as follows:

Sec. 1. The states may establish an exchange meeting the following requirements: X, Y, and Z.

Sec. 2. If the states don't establish an exchange, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shall establish an exchange meeting the following requirements: X, Y, and Z.

Sec. 3. The IRS shall issue tax credits to a person if the person (a) has annual income below Q; and (b) purchases health insurance on an exchange established by the state under section 1.​

Now, to be sure, the above simplification changes significant aspects of the statute in ways that may affect the arguments on one side or the other (and makes the Halbig argument stronger). But, it can serve as a model that you and I can use to help explain our respective arguments to each other. So, as I understand your argument, you would say with respect to the above simplified statute that because (1) states can establish an exchange under section 1, (2) HHS must establish an exchange under section 2 if a state fails to do so under section 1, and (3) the IRS can issue tax credits under section 3, it doesn't matter that section 3 limits the tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on an exchange established by the state under section 1. Is that what you're saying?

Now, here's a simplified Halbig-style argument: (1) The statute provides for two different types of exchanges in two different sections. (2) The statute only permits tax credits on one of those types of exchanges--namely, an exchange established by the state under section 1. (3) Therefore, the IRS is not authorized under the statute to issue tax credits to purchasers from the exchange established by HHS under section 2. Is this argument clearer? If so, in what ways would you say it differs from your understanding of the real argument being advanced in Halbig?

 

[pigeon]

What hypothetical? The 95% figure? I admit I didn't do any kind of polling but 99% seemed too on the nose.

The idea that people are paying a lot more than before for their insurance and that the fees are being deferred onto our grandchildren through tax credits (which implies that they will increase the deficit).

Both of these seem like reasonably testable ideas to me.

 

[benjipwns]

Premiums haven't increased and the plans offered on the exchanges aren't more expensive than before once you add the subsidies back in? Especially if you didn't buy a comparable plan but some kind of insurance or went without?

2015 is certainly going to see a large number of them:

The overall increase is expected to settle at 10%-15%, says John Holahan, a fellow specializing in health care at the Urban Institute. From 2008 to 2010, premiums grew by 10% or more per year, according to the health care research and policy foundation Commonwealth Fund.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2014/June/03/coverage-news-and-health-exchanges.aspx
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2014/June/25/premium-costs.aspx
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...-plans-request-double-digit-premium-increases

If the requested premium rates were approved, the cost for a platinum plan would increase from $409 per month to $475 per month, or $5,700 a year, not including subsidies. A gold plan would increase from $355 to $385, a silver plan would increase from $308 per month to $330, and a bronze plan would increase from $249 to $272.

The price of a catastrophic plan would actually decrease, from $172 per month to $151.

MetroPlus, which captured the third highest market share on the state’s exchange, and which serves only New York City residents, is requesting an average 18.5 percent increase in its premiums from last year, which would raise premiums for some customers by more than $100 per month. The price for a platinum plan under the proposed rate increase would spike from $457 per month to $585 per month. A gold plan would increase from $406 to $495, a silver plan would increase from $368 to $432 and a bronze plan would increase from $344 to $390. The cost of a catastrophic plan would go down, from $328 to $252.

From the HHS report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...31b502-f650-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

The Americans who qualify for tax credits through the new federal insurance exchange are paying an average of $82 a month in premiums for their coverage — about one-fourth the bill they would have faced without such financial help, according to a new government analysis.

...

The health officials said they have not yet analyzed the incomes of people who qualified for the subsidies. But overall, the report shows, the average monthly tax credit this year is $264. Without the federal help, the average premium chosen by people eligible for a tax credit would have been $346 per month, and the subsidy lowered the consumers’ premiums, on average, by 76 percent. The result is that four out of five people with subsidies are paying premiums of no more than $100 a month — although that does not include money they might need to spend for insurance deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.

The report does not include a tally of the total amount the government is spending this year on the tax credits, and the health officials declined to provide one.

On average, the analysis found, people buying in the federal exchange had a choice of 47 health plans, offered by an average of five different insurance companies. The level of competition is slightly below what was found in late September, days before the federal insurance exchange opened, when HHS issued a report saying that the typical American would have a choice of 53 health plans from eight different insurance companies.

So 76% of the cost is being hidden on average but still being paid by someone. And since the government is going to run real deficits forever like it has since 1957, debt is going to grow.

I'm not saying these are some kind of huge proportion, I'd imagine the stimulus becoming the new baseline in spending outweighs it and most every other change in the last five years, but every bit contributes. (And I picked that specific original objection (Taxation without Representation) almost entirely because of the holiday, honest! Which is why I did that post you replied to for more clarity on my full disgusting extremist positions.)

 

[zero shift]

So it's totally cool to shovel an ungodly amount of debt onto people who had no say, so that the government can hide the costs of the insurance plans it's forcing everyone to purchase from private corporations. Because they can like vote or give up their citizenship if allowed to later.

The New New Left I guess.

To quote empty vessel: "Debt doesn't mean anything at all, it's just numbers on a screen."

 

[The Technomancer]

Somebody sure has egg on their face now!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/109076.php

Oh yeah, this has been going on for a while now. The Somali population here is incredibly noticible, especially because so many of the women wear hijabs

 

[Diablos]

(1) Frank the Great was saying that the exchanges would be rendered worthless because doing so helped him show that adopting the Halbig challengers' interpretation of the law would violate two canons of construction. (Canons of construction are rules that courts use to interpret statutory text, particularly when the text itself can be interpreted in more than one way--i.e., when the text is ambiguous.) Those two rules are: (a) statutes should be interpreted so as to avoid absurd results; and (b) statutes should not be interpreted in a way that results in one provision being meaningless or unnecessary. So, he wasn't making an argument about the practical impact of adopting the challengers' interpretation, but about the canons that he believes counsel against adopting it.

Okay, thanks for the clarification there.

Spoiler

If you haven't been able to tell already I'm not quite on par with your level of discussing law... sorry!

But, regarding the practical effects, I don't know whether a loss for the government in Halbig would cripple the ACA, and I doubt that you do, either. This is because if the Halbig challengers are victorious, only those who are currently receiving subsidies on the federal exchange would be affected, not everyone who has purchased insurance through the federal exchange. I don't know how many people that is. I honestly don't even know what a court ruling in favor of the Halbig challengers would mean for the availability of subsidies on the federal exchange. A court could, conceivably, stay the execution of any order directing the IRS to stop offering the tax credits until next year, or even indefinitely.

Yes, the ones currently receiving subsidies are affected... and anyone in the future who would try to sign up obviously would not be entitled to any subsidy whatsoever. So I'm pretty sure it would cripple the law. It seems blatantly obvious what Halbig is trying to accomplish. A lot of people are getting subsidies; I don't know the number. Maybe someone here does. I do know it would be enough to have a profound negative impact on the effectiveness of this law and an individual's ability to finally be able to afford a health plan. If a court rules that the ACA never gave the IRS proper authorization to provide those tax credits on the federal exchange, that's it, it's over, no? Why are you saying you aren't sure what it means for the availability of subsidies on the exchange? Seems pretty simple to me -- they are trying to say the law was never written to actually provide subsidies for plans offered on healthcare.gov.

If a court order is issued to prevent this from happening, there's no way that could last forever, right? You say it could be indefinite? How can they do that in the face of a potential ruling that says it is illegal? Again, I don't understand. Why not stay the execution of the Hobby Lobby ruling too, or any ruling we don't like?

(2) The way your comment was phrased seemed to indicate that you believed that state-run exchanges would offer state-tax credits, but not federal-tax credits, and that the federal exchanges would offer federal-tax credits, but not state-tax credits. That's wrong. If that's not what you intended, then good. Because you would have been wrong otherwise.

Spoiler

Which is bad.

No, I never meant that. If I typed it in such a way I probably just meant that getting coverage through a state exchange is the only mechanism by which you should be able to get a subsidy from the IRS according to Halbig.

(3) This kind of hyperbole isn't helpful. A theocracy is a system of government by divine guidance or the divinely guided. Hobby Lobby is nowhere close to such a system. The opinion wasn't based on religious teachings or guidance from God. It was based on guidance from Congress in the form of the RFRA, which was itself largely based on the Supreme Court's Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence prior to the 1990s. Religious exemptions from generally applicable laws don't make a theocracy or something similar to it (and I doubt a theocracy would even permit such religious exemptions). Instead, religious exemptions are a recognition that we live in a pluralistic society and, to the extent possible, the law should not present a choice between obeying the dictates of conscience and obeying the dictates of Congress.

If you say so... to me it looks like something that heavily favors specific Christian institutions (those oh so dear 'closely held' ones) and completely disregards the concerns of other religious/nonreligious institutions, in favor of a very small group of people who threw a hissy fit because they believe their religious freedoms are being violated, which is ludicrous in this day and age.

(4) Let me try to simplify the Halbig argument to make it easier to discuss. Imagine a statute with three sections, as follows:

Sec. 1. The states may establish an exchange meeting the following requirements: X, Y, and Z.

Sec. 2. If the states don't establish an exchange, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shall establish an exchange meeting the following requirements: X, Y, and Z.

Sec. 3. The IRS shall issue tax credits to a person if the person (a) has annual income below Q; and (b) purchases health insurance on an exchange established by the state under section 1.​

Now, to be sure, the above simplification changes significant aspects of the statute in ways that may affect the arguments on one side or the other (and makes the Halbig argument stronger). But, it can serve as a model that you and I can use to help explain our respective arguments to each other. So, as I understand your argument, you would say with respect to the above simplified statute that because (1) states can establish an exchange under section 1, (2) HHS must establish an exchange under section 2 if a state fails to do so under section 1, and (3) the IRS can issue tax credits under section 3, it doesn't matter that section 3 limits the tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on an exchange established by the state under section 1. Is that what you're saying?

If it makes the Halbig argument stronger, what is their argument closer to being in the real world? And yes, basically, I believe the law while a bit confusing in this regard still says enough to allow for the subsidies on the federal exchange.

Now, here's a simplified Halbig-style argument: (1) The statute provides for two different types of exchanges in two different sections. (2) The statute only permits tax credits on one of those types of exchanges--namely, an exchange established by the state under section 1. (3) Therefore, the IRS is not authorized under the statute to issue tax credits to purchasers from the exchange established by HHS under section 2. Is this argument clearer? If so, in what ways would you say it differs from your understanding of the real argument being advanced in Halbig?

Yeah, I understand this. They're saying you should only be entitled to a subsidy (or tax credit, I should be saying) if you got coverage through a state exchange, period.

 

[Oblivion]

Wait, I didn't know there was another Obamacare SC case coming up. So this one, if struck down, would eliminate the subsidies for red states?

 

[Diablos]

Yes.

 

[Oblivion]

So, red states would in effect be raising taxes on their own citizens?

I can live with that.

 

[Diablos]

So, red states would in effect be raising taxes on their own citizens?

I can live with that.

Don't fool yourself, everyone will blame Obamacare/Obama/Democrats first if this happens.

 

[kehs]

The New New Left I guess.

 

[Oblivion]

Don't fool yourself, everyone will blame Obamacare/Obama/Democrats first if this happens.

And this is different from the way Republicans normally act, how?

 

[sc0la]

Does it say by the states, or by the state?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Don't fool yourself, everyone will blame Obamacare/Obama/Democrats first if this happens.

No, if Halbig goes to the Supreme Court and the government loses, the blame will be placed on the Supreme Court. It won't matter that the blame should be placed on Obamacare (which says what it says), and Obama and the Democrats (who are 100% responsible for what the law says). All that will matter is that the Supreme Court "held Obamacare subsidies unconstitutional" (which would no doubt be claimed by at least one liberal source).

(1) Yes, the ones currently receiving subsidies are affected... and anyone in the future who would try to sign up obviously would not be entitled to any subsidy whatsoever.

(2) If a court rules that the ACA never gave the IRS proper authorization to provide those tax credits on the federal exchange, that's it, it's over, no? Why are you saying you aren't sure what it means for the availability of subsidies on the exchange? Seems pretty simple to me -- they are trying to say the law was never written to actually provide subsidies for plans offered on healthcare.gov.

If a court order is issued to prevent this from happening, there's no way that could last forever, right? You say it could be indefinite? How can they do that in the face of a potential ruling that says it is illegal? Again, I don't understand. Why not stay the execution of the Hobby Lobby ruling too, or any ruling we don't like?

(3) If you say so... to me it looks like something that heavily favors specific Christian institutions (those oh so dear 'closely held' ones) and completely disregards the concerns of other religious/nonreligious institutions, in favor of a very small group of people who threw a hissy fit because they believe their religious freedoms are being violated, which is ludicrous in this day and age.

(4) If it makes the Halbig argument stronger, what is their argument closer to being in the real world? And yes, basically, I believe the law while a bit confusing in this regard still says enough to allow for the subsidies on the federal exchange.

(1) If the federal-exchange subsidies are invalidated, that means that the states will be faced with the choice that the federal government (in the challengers' view) originally intended to put them to. Every state that opted out of creating an exchange did so under the understanding that tax credits would be available on the federal exchange, because the IRS rule which says so was proposed in August 2011 and finalized in May 2012, and states had until November 2012 to inform HHS whether they would create an exchange or not. So, going forward, it could be that more states will opt in to create an exchange, given that the availability of tax credits will be conditioned on that decision. It's impossible to say one way or the other, though.

(2) I'm just speculating on this point. I think the Supreme Court is sufficiently sensitive to public opinion that they wouldn't want the public to think their action struck down the subsidies that purchasers on the federal exchange believed they were entitled to. But that doesn't mean that the Court wouldn't recognize that Congress shouldn't be able to enact one law, then have a court rewrite it when the government realizes that the law Congress enacted contains an embarrassing oversight. One appealing possibility for a court would be to permit the IRS to keep handing out subsidies (at least for this year), but to enjoin the IRS from enforcing the employer mandate (and individual mandate against individuals only subject to it because of the availability of subsidies) in states that refused to set up their own exchange.

(3) Hobby Lobby offers an exemption to anyone who has a religious objection to providing coverage for the challenged contraceptives, regardless from which religion that objection arises. And what's ludicrous is suggesting that religious liberty is unfit for protection against government interference, regardless of what year it is.

(4) I've summarized the Halbig argument in an older post that I quoted some posts up (maybe on the last page or two by now). EDIT: Here it is.

But, ignoring the real law, let's talk about this simplified law. Do you believe that the simplified law would permit for credits on the federal exchange established under section 2? If so, what do you make of the language in section 3 that limits those credits to exchanges created by a state under section 1? (I think discussing the simplified law will help us figure out where our wires are getting crossed in discussing the real arguments in Halbig.)

 

[RustyNails]

Doom, Diablos. Dooooooom.

 

[cooljeanius]

It's times like these that I really miss empty vessel.

Anyone know if/when he'll be back? I seem to have missed his banning and any discussion surrounding it...

 

[Zen]

He will be back relatively soon, he went full conspiracy theory/neoliberalism sucks vs conservatism argument mode in the Ukraine threads which put on thin ice and then couldn't resist arguing with others after like the billionth warning to the collective and 2nd locked thread. There is a reason you can not find any Ukraine threads in OT anymore, which really sucks, but what can you do.

 

[benjipwns]

He was kinda right about the silliness of a "news thread" that could have no discussion at all but was fine with people posting things from propaganda and losing their shit when counter-propaganda was posted. Even if I disagree with his view of the subject at hand.

It was a shitty hill to die on though since there were so many mod warnings.

 

[benjipwns]

OBAMA THE TYRANT SENDING FEDERAL TROOPS TO STOP AMERICANS FROM PROTECTING AMERICA FROM INVASION:

HOUSTON, Texas--As illegal immigrants continue to spill across the U.S.-Mexico border, federal authorities are attempting to relocate the migrants from South Texas to housing facilities in states across the nation. One such facility is located in Murrieta, California, where a large group of protesters recently blocked a bus full of migrants from arriving. The protesters remain there, adamant that illegal immigrants don't get dumped in their town. But soon the concerned citizens may be forced to step down--Breitbart Texas has learned that federal agents plan to arrive in Murrieta on Monday with riot gear to ensure that another busload makes it to the housing facility.

Jeremy Oliver, a resident of Temecula, California--a town that neighbors Murrieta--told Breitbart Texas that local police officers warned the protesters that "it's going to get ugly."

Oliver said, "The feds are pissed that they haven't been able to use this facility. Officers out there warned people that federal agents will be in Murrieta on Monday--they are going to get the next bus through no matter what. Riot gear and shields will be used to push the crowd back."

John Henry, a Murrieta resident since 1991, was told the same thing by local officers.

"We're being told that federal Marshals or ICE will be here in the next few days and that they are bringing riot gear," Henry said. "They're apparently going to be blocking off the street with concrete blockades so that no vehicles can get through. The River County Sheriff's Department showed up last night and brought a huge watch tower that shoots up into the air 35 feet."

...

On June 4th Breitbart Texas' Managing Director Brandon Darby broke the news that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be relocating illegal immigrants from Texas to California. Within moments of that story being published, the official Twitter account of the San Diego CBP tweeted at Darby, insisting the report was “erroneous” and asking for it to be removed from the internet.

Days later the San Diego CBP deleted the tweet from their official account. Subsequent reports, outlining plans to fly immigrants to Southern California, proved CBP had indeed planned the relocation all along.

It is unclear how the border crisis will be handled moving forward, especially given that many U.S. citizens oppose the migrants being shipped by the hundreds to their communities.

 

[Wilsongt]

OBAMA THE TYRANT SENDING FEDERAL TROOPS TO STOP AMERICANS FROM PROTECTING AMERICA FROM INVASION:

*looks at source*

Just stop.

 

[benjipwns]

OBAMA THE TYRANT SENDING FEDERAL TROOPS TO STOP AMERICANS FROM PROTECTING AMERICA FROM INVASION:

YES WE CAN!

Jeffrey C. Miller • 10 hours ago
Bring it on! Another civilian militia showdown is in order.
1534 • Reply•Share ›

WhatTha Jeffrey C. Miller • 10 hours ago
We're ready!
849 • Reply•Share ›

camp50 WhatTha • 8 hours ago
It is time for state law enforcement personnel to start arresting these federal agents.
393 • Reply•Share ›

redbird camp50 • 8 hours ago
Same with local LEO's. They need to be telling Feds to re-route their illegals South, all the way back to the southern border.
Mayors, City Council, etc. need to be at the front lines with their constituents making sure No illegals are dumped in their town.
Take your illegal Aliens back where they came from.
130 • Reply•Share ›

Factory_Hag redbird • 7 hours ago
Would love to see some elected officials standing with the people. It would really help, even if it only keeps the Federales from getting too rough.
71 • Reply•Share ›

koolaid Factory_Hag • 7 hours ago
If you are anywhere near Murrieta CA get your b u tt down there and support these protesters. Numbers matter, it's time to take a stand right NOW

rainesson koolaid • 7 hours ago
Go if you can, go as if your life depended on it.

If the Brownshirt Feds from DC can crush resistance in Murrieta, then they'll be free to do it anywhere they please. Every border town from Galveston to San Diego will be under the DC Jackboot. And the Welcome Mat out for anyone from the Narco-Corruptocracy that runs from Mexico to Panama.

Even if you're 150 miles away, ride, walk, run or crawl; stand up for the law. The future of the country hangs in the balance.
89 • Reply•Share ›

OBAMUNISM rainesson • 6 hours ago
This situation consisted of economic and biological warfare by Barack Hussein Obama on the American people. Now he has escalated it to actual warfare. Obama's legacy to the U.S.A.: "If you like your Infectious Tuberculosis, you can keep your Infectious Tuberculosis."...and..."If you don't like your Infectious Tuberculosis, I have stockpiled millions of rounds of hollow points, one has your name on it." I will not be surprised when Obama sends surviving family members a bill for the bullet used to kill their loved one. Fricking Banana Republic Dictator.
60 • Reply•Share ›

Abigail Park rainesson • 3 hours ago
I'm in La Jolla and going to check it out!

The is unacceptable. Obama basically tells these poor fools that they will be given the world if they sneak into our country. After all, he won't deport or arrest them. And then big Sheila Jackson Lee shows up at the border with goddamn lollipops.

What has our country come to? Enforce our laws and this won't be an issue.

Why are we obligated to house these ILLEGAL people? They already get FREE healthcare at hospitals. What’s next - giving them free food, voting rights, and a EBT card / welfare check? Good grief! Americans like myself are struggling. I’m employed (temp work) but can’t afford health insurance. I don’t drive much either cause I can’t afford gas. My basic $19/month car insurance from Insurance Panda (thank god for it) probably won’t cover me for huge accidents either. I cut cable and internet and I haven’t been out to eat or to the movies in god knows how long. It infuriates me that these people who don’t even belong here are getting more freebies than tax paying, law abiding citizens like myself!

Illegal aliens show up and all of sudden the govt. can buy a college to house them.
13 • Reply•Share ›

redbird John (magnum) • 3 hours ago
If obama brings in the U.N. Migrant Council to re-settle the ALIENs under a phony Refugee status, that opens the door to UN peacekeepers, many already here. It won't be us Patriots that fire the 1st shot.
God Bless the U.S.
2 • Reply•Share ›

larryl212 George • 8 hours ago
Please tell me you're on some kind of "Buzz." In all my years on Disqus this post is the most disjointed... ever. These are demonic times. Think. Be articulate. Our way of life is imploding. So please... don't post such gibberish. It just gives the collectivist movement fodder for their point... "We're all bigoted... ill- educated hayseeds... that need a grand king to tell us all what to do."
14 • Reply•Share ›

John (magnum) rainesson • 3 hours ago
Out Of Control

Our Federal government is out of control,
Flushing our rights down the toilet bowl.
Opening our borders to illegal scum,
For more votes and corrupt-shun.

BLM just made a stand,
And the patriots came to the desert land.
BLM backed down, from round one,
Be vigilant America, this AIN’T done !

Fuhrer Obama and his parasites,
Destroying America is in their sights.
Spying on you spying on me,
This isn’t right in the ‘land of the free’ !

A land of sheep have we become?
The rule of law should be number one.
This old vet will die FREE,
And not upon a bended knee!

They want our guns and complete control,
And they know it won’t be an easy go.
Chip a little here, chip a little there,
Hoping we won’t be aware.

The oath I took for Vietnam,
Is still in effect to protect this land.
If you want my guns you see,
Look up the meaning of MOLON LABE !!

John D USN RVN 71, 72, 73, evac 75

4/13/2014
13 • Reply•Share ›

Tim John (magnum) • 2 hours ago
Having some problems getting those upvotes up after your official outing as a federal subversive? Your obvious attempt to inject lawless anti constitutional ideology onto the libertarian, Christian, returning veteran and militia movements by assimilation are down right obvious and ineffective.
Just like the democratic operative caught at the 2nd Amendment rally shouting racist and derogative remarks to attempt to associate by assimilation is very similar, except at least those individuals had the honor to try to deceive the public to their face rather than over the internet hiding from those they set up. Yeah no you are not obvious.

I told you your federal trolling run is over, and now look at you........4 votes. lmfao.
2 • Reply•Share ›

John (magnum) BG • an hour ago
Timmy is not playing with a full deck ! From the sound of his rantings, he must be 3 suits shy of a full deck !!
1 • Reply•Share ›

John (magnum) Tim • 2 hours ago
From the 3 letter IDIOT gubment troll himself !
6 • Reply•Share ›

Tim John (magnum) • 2 hours ago
Its nice to see you are so upbeat during your federal outing!!!!!!
Love the exclamation marks and bold font !!!! lmfao

The rule of law does not include "tarring, feathering and executing" public officials without due process or trial.....hate to have to give you a constitutional lesson in front of the whole discus community like this. But hey, you hide your previous post so it will be like this never happened tomorrow right?
3 • Reply•Share ›

John (magnum) Tim • 2 hours ago
ROTFLMAO

The ONLY up votes you get are the ones you give yourself gubment troll.

BTW, arrogant IDIOT gubment troll, it will be a cold day in hell before you school me on ANYTHING !
4 • Reply•Share ›

 

[Joe Molotov]

Mexicans coming from one direction and Somalians coming from the other. gg America

 

[Chichikov]

He will be back relatively soon, he went full conspiracy theory/neoliberalism sucks vs conservatism argument mode in the Ukraine threads which put on thin ice and then couldn't resist arguing with others after like the billionth warning to the collective and 2nd locked thread. There is a reason you can not find any Ukraine threads in OT anymore, which really sucks, but what can you do.

The tree of neogaf must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of posters and mods.

p.s.
While I'm not super well informed on this whole Ukrainian mess nor did I follow that thread too closely, but anyone that thinks that the west installing/supporting far right political leaders for short term economic gains is some crazy unthinkable conspiracy theory needs to get a history refresher.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The tree of neogaf must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of posters and mods.

p.s.
While I'm not super well informed on this whole Ukrainian mess nor did I follow that thread too closely, but anyone that thinks that the west installing/supporting far right political leaders for short term economic gains is some crazy unthinkable conspiracy theory needs to get a history refresher.

Its pretty crazy to think everything is the wests doing and they desire to install governments in all countries and everytime there is something where they are tangentially involved its our fault and I also think its crazy to for it always to be a economic motive.

 

[benjipwns]

Mexicans coming from one direction and Somalians coming from the other. gg America

It's because of weak leadership, especially after Benghazi, you don't see Mexicans crossing the border into Russia.

 

[Averon]

Besides coddling the Tea Party, what is the politics behind doing nothing on immigration and constantly antagonizing Hispanics? If 2012 didn't open the GOP's eyes, what will?

 

[B-Dubs]

Besides coddling the Tea Party, what is the politics behind doing nothing on immigration and constantly antagonizing Hispanics? If 2012 didn't open the GOP's eyes, what will?

There isn't any logic behind it.

 

[benjipwns]

Besides coddling the Tea Party, what is the politics behind doing nothing on immigration and constantly antagonizing Hispanics? If 2012 didn't open the GOP's eyes, what will?

No politics, just patriotism.

And will, the will to defend America from her enemies.

 

[sc0la]

It's because of weak leadership, especially after Benghazi, you don't see Mexicans crossing the border into Russia.

You will once Mexico annexes Alaska into part of Mexicalialaska

 

[Averon]

There isn't any logic behind it.

They came out of 2012 with a huge problem with Hispanics, and at the rate they are going, they will enter 2016 with an ever bigger problem with Hispanics than in 2012.

You'd think there was some strategy behind this, because any other explanation is illogical/digging their own graves.

 

[Chichikov]

Its pretty crazy to think everything is the wests doing and they desire to install governments in all countries and everytime there is something where they are tangentially involved its our fault and I also think its crazy to for it always to be a economic motive.

Why would it be?
I haven't done a rigorous count, but I believe the west (usually the CIA) was involved in one way or another in most right wing coups/revolutions since World War II.
That of course doesn't meant it was necessarily involved this time, but suggesting there might be a connection is not more out there than wondering if Cheney's Halliburton connections had anything to do with the Iraq war.

 

[zero shift]

So apparently my brothers friend thinks that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, but he moved them before the US got to them.

 

[Tamanon]

So apparently my brothers friend thinks that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, but he moved them before the US got to them.

Well, obviously they're in Iran now, so gotta go after 'em.

Your Democracy is in another castle, sorry!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why would it be?
I haven't done a rigorous count, but I believe the west (usually the CIA) was involved in one way or another in most right wing coups/revolutions since World War II.
That of course doesn't meant it was necessarily involved this time, but suggesting there might be a connection is not more out there than wondering if Cheney's Halliburton connections had anything to do with the Iraq war.

The fact the USA had connections (not even close to being "involved" with them) with most events in the 20th century is fine to say (it also misses the fact we helped and allied with Left-Wing governments, promoted democracy, helped expand trade and agriculture lifting billions out of poverty). We were a world power why spied and wanted information. To insinuate we direct and control things rather than react and try to find the best angle for the US is silly, conspiratorial and wrong. But people don't like that history isn't directed by a higher power. It happens and is the product of a lot of different things

The Cheney Halliburton stuff is ridiculous too. We went to war because neoconservatives wanted to get rid of Saddam. Its the evil villain image were everything that happens is processed on "will this help captialism and rich people" is what's so stupid. Its an excuse and blame shifting for why one's politics fail or why something you don't think should happen does happen. There's this idea there has to be some sinister explanation, when there really isn't

Edit: EV's views are a bit different and while I vehemently disagree the people I tend to get annoyed with are the people who infest with drive by posts or conspiracies on every reddit or OT thread on the NSA, Israel, Iraq, China, Russia, Etc.

 

[benjipwns]

So apparently my brothers friend thinks that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, but he moved them before the US got to them.

Well, technically this is true. Even more so the further back you go. Like say in the 1980's when the Commerce Department gave him a whole bunch of chemical weapons and computers.

Guess it depends on how you define "he moved them" more than anything.

 

[Chichikov]

The fact the USA had connections (not even close to being "involved" with them) with most events in the 20th century is fine to say (it also misses the fact we helped and allied with Left-Wing governments, promoted democracy, helped expand trade and agriculture lifting billions out of poverty). We were a world power why spied and wanted information. To insinuate we direct and control things rather than react and try to find the best angle for the US is silly, conspiratorial and wrong. But people don't like that history isn't directed by a higher power. It happens and is the product of a lot of different things

Yes close to being involve with them.
Read some history man.
The CIA was heavily involved in many many coups, providing funding, equipment and personnel.
And while speculative history is dangerous, in many of these cases you can say with confidence that these things would not have happened without the US involvement.

And I never said the US only does bad things, that's silly, fuck, I'm not even saying all the coups the US supported were bad, but I think rejecting the possibility of any sort of US covert involvement outright is more silly than suggesting there might be one.

 

[PhoenixDark]

*looks at source*

Just stop.

Nice win win for Breitbart. If the story is true, more protestors will show up=ugly scene. If the story isn't true, more protestors will show up=ugly scene.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes close to being involve with them.
Read some history man.
The CIA was heavily involved in many many coups, providing funding, equipment and personnel.
And while speculative history is dangerous, in many of these cases you can say with confidence that these things would not have happened without the US involvement.

And I never said the US only does bad things, that's silly, fuck, I'm not even saying all the coups the US supported were bad, but I think rejecting the possibility of any sort of US covert involvement outright is more silly than suggesting there might be one.

I'm aware of the history. And if I'm reading you right I don't think we're disagreeing but that's not whats said regarding the US's involvement just what it means and how much our involvement matters.

 

[East Lake]

Yes close to being involve with them.
Read some history man.
The CIA was heavily involved in many many coups, providing funding, equipment and personnel.
And while speculative history is dangerous, in many of these cases you can say with confidence that these things would not have happened without the US involvement.

And I never said the US only does bad things, that's silly, fuck, I'm not even saying all the coups the US supported were bad, but I think rejecting the possibility of any sort of US covert involvement outright is more silly than suggesting there might be one.

Imo entertaining the possibility that the US was involved wasn't the problem in that thread. It was more that it got really tedious to read that everything in Ukraine was happening because the neoliberals wanted it to without even a passing mention of other events in Ukraine that might have caused it, like corruption from their president. To me it was the posting of someone who clearly had drawn his conclusion ahead of time and wasn't interested in actually making a genuine attempt at understanding what happened. Agenda driven history.

 

[leroidys]

Imo entertaining the possibility that the US was involved wasn't the problem in that thread. It was more that it got really tedious to read that everything in Ukraine was happening because the neoliberals wanted it to without even a passing mention of other events in Ukraine that might have caused it, like corruption from their president. To me it was the posting of someone who clearly had drawn his conclusion ahead of time and wasn't interested in actually making a genuine attempt at understanding what happened. Agenda driven history.

This plus dismissing any immediate and practical implications of civil war and Putin's moves to destabilize Ukraine or any reasons to depose Yanukovych that have nothing to do with the West or Russia because "neoliberalism tho".

 

[East Lake]

Yeah and if you didn't accept that everything was because neoliberalism, you were indoctrinated.

That's not even to say that there isn't an angle to look at what happened that way and all his points were bad, but ultimately I didn't trust him to present information that wasn't filled with propaganda.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Imo entertaining the possibility that the US was involved wasn't the problem in that thread. It was more that it got really tedious to read that everything in Ukraine was happening because the neoliberals wanted it to without even a passing mention of other events in Ukraine that might have caused it, like corruption from their president. To me it was the posting of someone who clearly had drawn his conclusion ahead of time and wasn't interested in actually making a genuine attempt at understanding what happened. Agenda driven history.

This plus dismissing any immediate and practical implications of civil war and Putin's moves to destabilize Ukraine or any reasons to depose Yanukovych that have nothing to do with the West or Russia because "neoliberalism tho".

This is also my basic criticism of a lot of lazy internet critiques of US policy and its history. It seems to assume everything happens in a vacuum and takes any agency from the direct actors and the people in the country.

 

[B-Dubs]

They came out of 2012 with a huge problem with Hispanics, and at the rate they are going, they will enter 2016 with an ever bigger problem with Hispanics than in 2012.

You'd think there was some strategy behind this, because any other explanation is illogical/digging their own graves.

It's the Tea Party pulling them to the right. That's literally all it is at this point. They can't even talk about immigration reform without getting primaried from the far right.