Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

NFIB concerned the Medicaid expansion, not the exchanges.

That being said the reasoning for striking down the medicare expansion is directly contrary to the logic that would have to be accepted in King.

I disagree with the courts decision there (I find it the most objectionable part of the decision and far more consequential than the commerce part which I feel either way was rather inconsequential) but if they're going to take that as precedent they can't then hold that its now OK to hold states hostage in the marketplaces but not with the medicare expansion.

 

[Metaphoreus]

That being said the reasoning for striking down the medicare expansion is directly contrary to the logic that would have to be accepted in King.

I disagree with the courts decision there (I find it the most objectionable part of the decision and far more consequential than the commerce part which I feel either way was rather inconsequential) but if they're going to take that as precedent they can't then hold that its now OK to hold states hostage in the marketplaces but not with the medicare expansion.

That's actually a very interesting argument, and I'm not sure what the Court would do with it. NFIB was the first case in which the Court struck down a Spending Clause program on the basis that it was unconstitutionally coercive, so we're in uncharted territory here. But I think the Court would have a few options:

1. The Halbig Solution. The D.C. Circuit panel in Halbig didn't bother determining whether the challengers were right in saying that Congress used the availability of credits as an incentive to states to establish their own exchanges. It sufficed that the court found Congress had restricted the availability of the credits, and it didn't need to further determine why. The Supreme Court could adopt a similar approach.
2. The Kicked Can. The Court could determine that Congress really did mean to use credits as an incentive to the states, but decline to answer the coercion question, since it isn't a question presented in this case.
3. Nationwide Credits. The Court could determine that Congress' reforms to state health insurance markets would destroy those markets without the availability of credits. Thus, states would have no real choice except to establish an exchange, and this would be unconstitutionally coercive. Consequently, the Court could hold that Congress must allow the credits in every state. But this remedy would not be analogous to the remedy in NFIB, where the additional funding remained contingent on a state's expansion of Medicaid.
4. The State Veto. The Court could find the offer of credits to be coercive, as under Option 3, but then say that what makes it coercive is the change to a state's preexisting insurance market. Thus, the Court could say that a state effectively gets to choose whether the ACA would be effective within its borders. This would be a messy, bizarre outcome, and I don't think it's at all likely, but it would at least be analogous to the remedy in NFIB.
5. The Diablos Scenario. Or this.

(Option 3 could be attractive to the conservative justices--they could decide the case using their preferred textualist methodology, further develop the coercion doctrine, and avoid throwing the markets into turmoil, all in one decision.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's actually a very interesting argument, and I'm not sure what the Court would do with it. NFIB was the first case in which the Court struck down a Spending Clause program on the basis that it was unconstitutionally coercive, so we're in uncharted territory here. But I think the Court would have a few options:

1. The Halbig Solution. The D.C. Circuit panel in Halbig didn't bother determining whether the challengers were right in saying that Congress used the availability of credits as an incentive to states to establish their own exchanges. It sufficed that the court found Congress had restricted the availability of the credits, and it didn't need to further determine why. The Supreme Court could adopt a similar approach.
2. The Kicked Can. The Court could determine that Congress really did mean to use credits as an incentive to the states, but decline to answer the coercion question, since it isn't a question presented in this case.
3. Nationwide Credits. The Court could determine that Congress' reforms to state health insurance markets would destroy those markets without the availability of credits. Thus, states would have no real choice except to establish an exchange, and this would be unconstitutionally coercive. Consequently, the Court could hold that Congress must allow the credits in every state. But this remedy would not be analogous to the remedy in NFIB, where the additional funding remained contingent on a state's expansion of Medicaid.
4. The State Veto. The Court could find the offer of credits to be coercive, as under Option 3, but then say that what makes it coercive is the change to a state's preexisting insurance market. Thus, the Court could say that a state effectively gets to choose whether the ACA would be effective within its borders. This would be a messy, bizarre outcome, and I don't think it's at all likely, but it would at least be analogous to the remedy in NFIB.
5. The Diablos Scenario. Or this.

(Option 3 could be attractive to the conservative justices--they could decide the case using their preferred textualist methodology, further develop the coercion doctrine, and avoid throwing the markets into turmoil, all in one decision.)

I'm always amazed how the decision regarding medicare in the ACA case is so overlooked. Its a very huge precedent and has the potential to be the biggest legacy of the Roberts court (I think other decisions are much more likely to be overturned or chipped away at.)

I'm of the opinion that the coercion argument is complete horse manure. It shackles future congress with out finding a justification in the consitution the 9th amendment justification is rather silly. I don't know what the liberal justices were thinking joining in that opinion.

 

[HyperionX]

I'm always amazed how the decision regarding medicare in the ACA case is so overlooked. Its a very huge precedent and has the potential to be the biggest legacy of the Roberts court (I think other decisions are much more likely to be overturned or chipped away at.)

I'm of the opinion that the coercion argument is complete horse manure. It shackles future congress with out finding a justification in the consitution the 9th amendment justification is rather silly. I don't know what the liberal justices were thinking joining in that opinion.

I'm probably not the only one here who thinks that once the conservatives lose their majority in the Supreme Court, the new court will say "LOL wat?!" to some of its decisions and just dump those precedents of this one in the trash like a bad habit.

Literally, I think some states and congress will just pass laws that directly contradicts the Supreme Court, and if it is a new liberal court, I think the new court will just let it go without a fight at all.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'm probably not the only one here who thinks that once the conservatives lose their majority in the Supreme Court, the new court will say "LOL wat?!" to some of its decisions and just dump those precedents of this one in the trash like a bad habit.

Literally, I think some states and congress will just pass laws that directly contradicts the Supreme Court, and if it is a new liberal court, I think the new court will just let it go without a fight at all.

Yeah, we haven't had a liberal court since the Warren court, and most of the things they decided were so popular, conservative justices ended up having to agree with those decisions to get through appointment.

Like, Republicans would have a hard time politically replacing Kennedy with someone that wants to overturn the decision to give same sex couples equal rights, but Democrats could easily appoint someone that vows to overturn Citizens United.

 

[Wilsongt]

So brownback's solution to his tax cuts is to cut funding to schools.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article7833150.html

 

[FyreWulff]

so basically cut taxes, make up for revenue shortfall by redirecting money from kids to pay for your tax cut.. with taxes

 

[HyperionX]

Kansas voters need an intellectual revolution. At some point, they're going to have reject the idiot right-wing politics that's destroying their state, and adopting something new.

 

[HyperionX]

Yeah, we haven't had a liberal court since the Warren court, and most of the things they decided were so popular, conservative justices ended up having to agree with those decisions to get through appointment.

Like, Republicans would have a hard time politically replacing Kennedy with someone that wants to overturn the decision to give same sex couples equal rights, but Democrats could easily appoint someone that vows to overturn Citizens United.

It kinda goes back further. Perhaps the so-called switch in time that saved nine was the beginning of the acceptance of conservative justices of the necessity of liberal rulings.

Frankly I wish we'll amend the constitution and actually made these long-stand rulings the absolute law of the land. Like a second bill of rights that Roosevelt wanted, so we don't have to worry about insane right-wing courts like we have today, potentially undoing some of these accepted policies.

 

[Crisco]

Dude. Plans don't qualify for federal tax credits. Applicable taxpayers do.

In case that's too flip a response:



And the "criteria for certification described in section 18031(c)" are:



Qualified health plans can be sold on an Exchange, and health plans which are not qualified health plans cannot be sold on an Exchange (42 USC 18031(d)(2)(A) and (B))--indicating that "qualified" refers to qualification to be sold on an Exchange. None of this has anything to do with tax credits. Stop making shit up.

Dude, this is the TITLE of the section describing tax credits,

26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan

Tax credits are only applicable to qualified health plans. And look, I didn't need a giant blob of mostly irrelevant text to make my point.

 

[Diablos]

Surprised this isn't being mentioned more in here. Wolf has much to be proud of, even if he will be working with an uber conservative legislature.

The voters here in PA including myself defied the overall mood of the electorate, and god dammit, that feels great.

 

[WayneMorse]

It's too bad the legislature in PA is so fucked up.

 

[HylianTom]

Surprised this isn't being mentioned more in here. Wolf has much to be proud of, even if he will be working with an uber conservative legislature.

The voters here in PA including myself defied the overall mood of the electorate, and god dammit, that feels great.

If he accomplishes only one big thing, it's that he'll stop any electoral vote schemes from making it through. That in and of itself is huge.

 

[Manmademan]

If he accomplishes only one big thing, it's that he'll stop any electoral vote schemes from making it through. That in and of itself is huge.

response to that was so negative here it wouldn't have made it through even with a republican governor. All of the representatives in moderate areas (philly and pittsburgh suburbs, basically) would have lost their seats over it en masse, which is why it never came up the first time around.

 

[HylianTom]

response to that was so negative here it wouldn't have made it through even with a republican governor. All of the representatives in moderate areas (philly and pittsburgh suburbs, basically) would have lost their seats over it en masse, which is why it never came up the first time around.

Honestly, I think it's a dead possibility for all states. The GOP was, once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't on this. They need to make-up electoral votes somehow, but such a move would've drove-away voters in droves.

I do bet that we won't even see PA seriously contested this time around. Every four years the GOP pretends to compete for it, but I think this might be the time where they just openly give-up.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm of the opinion that the coercion argument is complete horse manure. It shackles future congress with out finding a justification in the consitution the 9th amendment justification is rather silly. I don't know what the liberal justices were thinking joining in that opinion.

Respecting our system of dual sovereignty and of limited federal authority is hardly "silly." And, though NFIB was the first time the Court found a program to be coercive, it was not the first time the Court said that a coercive program would be unconstitutional. It's not as if the 7 justices who found the Medicaid expansion coercive were just making up a new rule.

Dude, this is the TITLE of the section describing tax credits,

Tax credits are only applicable to qualified health plans. And look, I didn't need a giant blob of mostly irrelevant text to make my point.

However little you understood of the definition of "qualified health plan," that definition is nevertheless entirely relevant to determining the significance of that term. You've taken the position that the Exchanges serve no purpose but to dole out tax credits, and you've been reduced to defending that conclusion based on the fact that "qualified health plan" appears in the title of the section that provides tax credits to "applicable taxpayers." You've lost, Crisco. Give it up.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sorry for the double post, but this is funny:

For those who like their tax rhetoric served with a side order of irony, here’s a tasty one: In his State of The Union Address tonight President Obama will propose closing what the White House has dubbed the “trust fund loophole.” But the loophole Obama is aiming at has nothing to do with trusts and closing it could actually increase the tax appeal of trusts.

One big problem with Obama's proposal is that the very wealthy (i.e., those with taxable estates) are already using irrevocable inter vivos trusts to remove from their estates property that is likely to appreciate over time. The property held in such trusts already doesn't receive a step-up in basis when the grantor dies, but under Obama's plan would also not trigger capital gains tax on the death of the grantor. Obama's plan therefore creates an income-tax reason for placing property in trust where there had only been an estate-tax reason before, making such trusts even more attractive to the people the president is trying to target with his proposal.

 

[Crisco]

Respecting our system of dual sovereignty and of limited federal authority is hardly "silly." And, though NFIB was the first time the Court found a program to be coercive, it was not the first time the Court said that a coercive program would be unconstitutional. It's not as if the 7 justices who found the Medicaid expansion coercive were just making up a new rule.



However little you understood of the definition of "qualified health plan," that definition is nevertheless entirely relevant to determining the significance of that term. You've taken the position that the Exchanges serve no purpose but to dole out tax credits, and you've been reduced to defending that conclusion based on the fact that "qualified health plan" appears in the title of the section that provides tax credits to "applicable taxpayers." You've lost, Crisco. Give it up.

Hahahahaha, the position I'm "defending" is the only factual one though. You even said yourself, that the only plans on the Exchanges are QHPs. The reason QHPs are defined at all is so that the government doesn't spend federal tax dollars on subsidizing shitty plans. The "Exchange" is the government agency and regulatory construct they designed for this purpose. It's the only reason it exists, to facilitate the distribution of federal funds to individuals purchasing qualified health plans. So of course part of it's "functions" include making sure the plans it lists are in fact, qualified health plans.

But look, I understand why you can't just concede the point here , and have to resort to telling me to "give it up". I don't how old you are, but that's internet 101 for "I lost". Supporters of this pathetic legal argument can't show any doubt. Anything less than absolute certainty over their conclusions means Chevron defense, and the IRS can tell the courts to fuck off. Which is precisely what's going to happen. John Roberts may be an ideologue, but he's also a decent lawyer, and will not rip the health care away from millions of Americans over legal garbage.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Hahahahaha, the position I'm "defending" is the only factual one though. You even said yourself, that the only plans on the Exchanges are QHPs. The reason QHPs are defined at all is so that the government doesn't spend federal tax dollars on subsidizing shitty plans. The "Exchange" is the government agency and regulatory construct they designed for this purpose. It's the only reason it exists, to facilitate the distribution of federal funds to individuals purchasing qualified health plans. So of course part of it's "functions" include making sure the plans it lists are in fact, qualified health plans.

But look, I understand why you can't just concede the point here , and have to resort to telling me to "give it up". I don't how old you are, but that's internet 101 for "I lost". Supporters of this pathetic legal argument can't show any doubt. Anything less than absolute certainty over their conclusions means Chevron defense, and the IRS can tell the courts to fuck off. Which is precisely what's going to happen. John Roberts may be an ideologue, but he's also a decent lawyer, and will not rip the health care away from millions of Americans over legal garbage.

There's no question of Chevron deference (which is the "d" word your frantic Google searching somehow failed to turn up) on this issue. Nobody--except for you and others equally unfamiliar with the ACA--thinks that the exchanges "only exist" to serve as conduits for tax credits. So were I to express doubt on that question--and I have none--it would not mean that I would have to recognize the IRS decision to treat "Exchange established by the State" as "Exchange established by the State or Secretary of HHS" as a valid interpretation of the statute. Those are distinct, unrelated questions. I refuse to concede your point about exchanges not because I lose otherwise, but because I know you're wrong.

The exchanges are "a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves." This is important, because "consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates."

Put another way, exchanges--marketplaces "that . . . operate something like a Travelocity Web site for insurance policies"--"fix a fundamental flaw in the present system by giving small businesses and individuals a broad choice of insurance policies at competitive prices. Right now, such buyers typically have few affordable options." But "[w]ithout careful design and adequate rules of fair play, and without letting enough buyers participate to create a robust market, the exchange might not actually stimulate new competition among the nation’s health insurers. . . . The risk is that many local markets could end up looking much as they do today — with small businesses and individuals at the mercy of too few insurers wielding too much power in their regions."

Or, again, exchanges are "an attempt to inject some retail competition into a marketplace that today is not exactly teeming with bargains. Theoretically, they’d allow individuals and small businesses to band together and get better prices and more variety in health insurance options – the kinds of breaks that big corporations can negotiate for their employees today."

In addition to providing greater leverage to consumers in an attempt to control costs, "[t]he exchanges would offer individuals who do not have employer-sponsored health insurance and some small businesses a choice of health care plans, providing standardized information on areas such as benefits and cost, making it easier to shop for coverage." Former Secretary of HHS Sebelius agreed, when announcing the launch of Healthcare.gov: "HealthCare.gov will help take some of the mystery out of shopping for health insurance. For too long, it was confusing to identify your options and compare plans. HealthCare.gov makes comparison shopping easier with a new insurance finder that allows users to answer a few basic questions and receive information about insurance options that could work for them. The site makes a system that thrived on complication and confusion easier to understand. This kind of transparency helps create informed consumers which increases competition, reduces prices and improves quality."

Your reductionist theory that the exchanges are simply about providing credits to eligible taxpayers doesn't stand up to scrutiny against the statutory functions assigned to the exchanges or against contemporaneous expressions of the purpose of the exchanges. So, like I said: You've lost, Crisco. Give it up.

 

[Particle Physicist]

There's no question of Chevron deference (which is the "d" word your frantic Google searching somehow failed to turn up) on this issue. Nobody--except for you and others equally unfamiliar with the ACA--thinks that the exchanges "only exist" to serve as conduits for tax credits. So were I to express doubt on that question--and I have none--it would not mean that I would have to recognize the IRS decision to treat "Exchange established by the State" as "Exchange established by the State or Secretary of HHS" as a valid interpretation of the statute. Those are distinct, unrelated questions. I refuse to concede your point about exchanges not because I lose otherwise, but because I know you're wrong.

The exchanges are "a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves." This is important, because "consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates."

Put another way, exchanges--marketplaces "that . . . operate something like a Travelocity Web site for insurance policies"--"fix a fundamental flaw in the present system by giving small businesses and individuals a broad choice of insurance policies at competitive prices. Right now, such buyers typically have few affordable options." But "[w]ithout careful design and adequate rules of fair play, and without letting enough buyers participate to create a robust market, the exchange might not actually stimulate new competition among the nation’s health insurers. . . . The risk is that many local markets could end up looking much as they do today — with small businesses and individuals at the mercy of too few insurers wielding too much power in their regions."

Or, again, exchanges are "an attempt to inject some retail competition into a marketplace that today is not exactly teeming with bargains. Theoretically, they’d allow individuals and small businesses to band together and get better prices and more variety in health insurance options – the kinds of breaks that big corporations can negotiate for their employees today."

In addition to providing greater leverage to consumers in an attempt to control costs, "[t]he exchanges would offer individuals who do not have employer-sponsored health insurance and some small businesses a choice of health care plans, providing standardized information on areas such as benefits and cost, making it easier to shop for coverage." Former Secretary of HHS Sebelius agreed, when announcing the launch of Healthcare.gov: "HealthCare.gov will help take some of the mystery out of shopping for health insurance. For too long, it was confusing to identify your options and compare plans. HealthCare.gov makes comparison shopping easier with a new insurance finder that allows users to answer a few basic questions and receive information about insurance options that could work for them. The site makes a system that thrived on complication and confusion easier to understand. This kind of transparency helps create informed consumers which increases competition, reduces prices and improves quality."

Your reductionist theory that the exchanges are simply about providing credits to eligible taxpayers doesn't stand up to scrutiny against the statutory functions assigned to the exchanges or against contemporaneous expressions of the purpose of the exchanges. So, like I said: You've lost, Crisco. Give it up.

What incentive would insurance companies have for entering the exchanges versus just continuing offering plans outside the exchanges?

Answer: subsidies. Subsidies opened up the potential customer base by, my estimate, a whole fuck ton.

What you posted is not wrong though. There can, in fact, be multiple reasons for creating exchanges.

 

[Crisco]

Are you seriously fucking explaining to me what an internet shopping website is? Again, I asked, how old are you? 15, 16? I'm saying that the Exchanges,in this law, were created and implemented for the distinct reason of selling subsidized health insurance to individuals. You can't disconnect the two, without one the other simply has no purpose for being. The government, certainly not the federal government at least, would have zero incentive to create and operate them if not for the tax credits.

Your blaming me of "reductionism" while comparing the ACA to Travelocity. Travelocity isn't selling health insurance subsidized by the federal government you fucking nitwit, it's price aggregator for airline tickets that takes a cut of the sale. The federal government isn't getting a cut of anything through the Exchanges, it's a pure handout in one direction. But the fact that you've latched on to some superficial resemblance as a means of validating your own preconceived fantasy about the law shouldn't be surprising. It's the entire basis of the bullshit you believe in.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What incentive would insurance companies have for entering the exchanges versus just continuing offering plans outside the exchanges?

Answer: subsidies. Subsidies opened up the potential customer base by, my estimate, a whole fuck ton.

What you posted is not wrong though. There can, in fact, be multiple reasons for creating exchanges.

Like the president said, "Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers." I'd argue that that incentive would be there even without the subsidies, assuming that the exchange websites were marketed well enough. That's not to say the subsidies are pointless, though--they make purchase possible for many who otherwise couldn't afford them (thus increasing the customer-base offered by the exchange to insurance companies) and make purchase on the exchange more attractive for all who qualify.

Are you seriously fucking explaining to me what an internet shopping website is? Again, I asked, how old are you? 15, 16? I'm saying that the Exchanges,in this law, were created and implemented for the distinct reason of selling subsidized health insurance to individuals. You can't disconnect the two, without one the other simply has no purpose for being. The government, certainly not the federal government at least, would have zero incentive to create and operate them if not for the tax credits.

Your blaming me of "reductionism" while comparing the ACA to Travelocity. Travelocity isn't selling health insurance subsidized by the federal government you fucking nitwit, it's price aggregator for airline tickets that takes a cut of the sale. The federal government isn't getting a cut of anything through the Exchanges, it's a pure handout in one direction. But the fact that you've latched on to some superficial resemblance as a means of validating your own preconceived fantasy about the law shouldn't be surprising. It's the entire basis of the bullshit you believe in.

Old enough to know when it's time to stop feeding a troll. Bolded for posterity.

(As an aside, HHS does charge a user fee to insurance companies selling plans on Healthcare.gov.)

 

[NeoXChaos]

For the many problems we face here in our state, nothing can be worse than what kansas is going through right now.

Kansas, you had a chance to change the course and you blew it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Interesting question: Is Netanyahu's Address to Congress Unconstitutional?

As has been widely reported, House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu to address the U.S. Congress. If Congress does host the speech, would it be unconstitutional? Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris suggests that it would. I agree.

First, Congress has no Article I, Section 8 to host a foreign leader. (Moreover, the necessary and proper clause, the usual refuge of Congress when it lacks an express power, isn’t available here, because Congress isn’t passing a law. The power is only to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper…”).

Second, reception of foreign leaders is an exclusive power of the President. Article II, Section 3, provides that “he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” In this situation, Prime Minister Netanyahu, appearing as the official representative of his country, should be classed as a “public Minister.” (The alternative would be a strange result: that the President would receive the Israeli ambassador, but not Israel's head of government). The President’s power here is properly understood as exclusive – both because that is how the reception power has traditionally been regarded since the Washington administration and because that is the implication of specifically calling it out in Article II. Consider the other presidential powers specifically identified in Article II: to make treaties (subject to Senate approval); to nominate judges, ambassadors and other executive officers; to make recess appointments; to execute the law; to commission officers of the United States – all are exclusive. So too is the reception power, which is granted in parallel with these powers.

...

As described in The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, George Washington as President asserted his role as the “sole channel of official intercourse” with foreign nations. (Letter from Washington to the Emperor of Morocco, Dec. 1, 1789, cited at 111 Yale L.J., p. 317; further discussion of the point at pp. 318-322). Notably, Washington quarreled with French ambassador Edmond Genet in 1793, who sought to enlist U.S. support for France in its conflict with Britain. When Washington insisted on neutrality, Genet attempted to communicate directly with Congress, which he suspected was more sympathetic to France than the President. Washington, through Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, responded sharply:

Jefferson upbraided Genet for attempting to contact Congress at all, declaring that all of Genet’s transactions must occur with the Executive of the United States. Any communications between the President and Congress were none of his business, and he could not interfere. The “President must be left to judge for himself what matters his duty or the public good may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress.”​

(The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, 111 Yale L.J. at 322, quoting Letter from Jefferson to Genet, Dec. 31, 1793). Ultimately Washington asked France to recall Genet, in part due to his attempts to circumvent the President and appeal instead to the supposedly pro-French Congress.

 

[Cloudy]

It doesn't make sense to rule that states have the right to not set up state exchanges, then later rule subsidies can only be accessed in states that set up exchanges.

I don't think they ever ruled against states setting up exchanges. They ruled against states being forced to expand medicaid.

PS: Watching Face the Nation this morning. When did Bob Scheiffer become such a flaming idiot?

 

[Oblivion]

PS: Watching Face the Nation this morning. When did Bob Scheiffer become such a flaming idiot?

He's been that way for a while. I really stopped paying attention to him when he compared the original Obamacare website glitches to the GOP shutting down the government.

Dude's a tool.

 

[Coriolanus]

Interesting question: Is Netanyahu's Address to Congress Unconstitutional?

What I got from that story, given the period, is that Washington was a dick.

 

[Cloudy]

He's been that way for a while. I really stopped paying attention to him when he compared the original Obamacare website glitches to the GOP shutting down the government.

Dude's a tool.

He basically pointed to every awful thing that happened around the world and blamed Obama because the US government didn't predict it. WTF lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

Honestly, I think it's a dead possibility for all states. The GOP was, once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't on this. They need to make-up electoral votes somehow, but such a move would've drove-away voters in droves.

I do bet that we won't even see PA seriously contested this time around. Every four years the GOP pretends to compete for it, but I think this might be the time where they just openly give-up.

I think PA, MI and WI were the only states in danger of this happening. Republicans would be incredibly short-sighted to give up electoral votes in Ohio and Florida when there's no reason why they couldn't still win the states outright.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Honestly, I think it's a dead possibility for all states. The GOP was, once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't on this. They need to make-up electoral votes somehow, but such a move would've drove-away voters in droves.

I do bet that we won't even see PA seriously contested this time around. Every four years the GOP pretends to compete for it, but I think this might be the time where they just openly give-up.

Doubtful. Republicans (and democrats) will always spin elections until the very end. PA remains a perfect state for republicans to fall for due to an endless amount of bad pollsters willing to tell them them what they want to hear. Just watch, come September 2016 we'll be hearing that since Obama isn't on the ballot, the black vote won't be nearly as high so PA is now a battleground state; and then the campaign will leak a poll to Drudge, which will then find its way onto Fox News. And after awhile the campaign will quietly pull out of PA. And Michigan.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Respecting our system of dual sovereignty and of limited federal authority is hardly "silly." And, though NFIB was the first time the Court found a program to be coercive, it was not the first time the Court said that a coercive program would be unconstitutional. It's not as if the 7 justices who found the Medicaid expansion coercive were just making up a new rule.

Respecting a meaningless phrase is silly. There is nothing in the constitution that limits congresses ability to give money to states.

Congress passed medicare and said to states, do this we'll give you money. Then in 2010 they changed what 'this' was. That is in their power. but because states had been junkies on the previous rules they complained to the supreme court and they told congress you can't change the rules because of a previous congresses decision. Its an absurd concept that a new congress is beholden to previous congresses. It limits their abilities to reform and change programs using not state money, but federal money if the states feel they haven't been giving warning.That concept is nowhere to be found in the constitution and is a judicial concept invented out of thin air to restrict federal power with out good justification. States aren't being coersed to anything, they're not being given money (that's not theirs) if they don't abide by certain restrictions and rules.

Its also a dangerous precedent because it seems to imply that if states are adversely affected by federal changes they can complain and stop them, that's a reversal of federal supremacy and the foundation of the constitution and the enumerated powers. Dual sovereignty doesn't mean equal soveriengity

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think PA, MI and WI were the only states in danger of this happening. Republicans would be incredibly short-sighted to give up electoral votes in Ohio and Florida when there's no reason why they couldn't still win the states outright.

If anything they will invest to make the illusion that the state is competitive when in reality they know like MI, it wont turn red. Detroit and Philadelphia ensures those two go blue.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think PA, MI and WI were the only states in danger of this happening. Republicans would be incredibly short-sighted to give up electoral votes in Ohio and Florida when there's no reason why they couldn't still win the states outright.

And we didn't see it happen in PA (now it will never happen in the near future with Wolf as the governor) and we're getting close enough to the election that MI and WI are under a microscope. The backlash would be horrendous, and my guess is that Walker and most definitely Snyder would veto any changes.

 

[speculawyer]

Surprised this isn't being mentioned more in here. Wolf has much to be proud of, even if he will be working with an uber conservative legislature.

The voters here in PA including myself defied the overall mood of the electorate, and god dammit, that feels great.

Jazz hands! Jazz hands, everyone!

 

[RustyNails]

What I got from that story, given the period, is that Washington was a dick.

This is already known to anyone who studied cursory history about our great founding father.

 

[gcubed]

Wolf basically did a big fuck you to the state GOP. He basically fired all of the appointments that Corbett made before he left.

 

[ivysaur12]

Wolf basically did a big fuck you to the state GOP. He basically fired all of the appointments that Corbett made before he left.

Yup. And wow, Pennsylvania is just so gerrymandered. Hopefully, Wolf will still be there in 2020 when a new map is drawn.

 

[ivysaur12]

@nickconfessore
Crowd loves Rubio's response on $ in politics. The only people who want less money in politics are liberals + "their friends in the media."

lol

 

[NeoXChaos]

"Paul says Obama gets no credit for recovery, and audience cheers."

Paul's answer: "The minimum wage is only harmful when it is above the market wage."

Rubio on min wage: "I’m worried about the people whose minimum wage is going to go down to zero."

 

[Metaphoreus]

Respecting a meaningless phrase is silly. There is nothing in the constitution that limits congresses ability to give money to states.

Quite the contrary--nothing in the Constitution permits Congress to spend money in a way not enumerated in Art. I, sec. 8 of the Constitution. Congress' power to "give money to states" is restricted by the enumeration of powers in that section (not to mention that such grants must be made for the general welfare of the nation). So, in my view, the entirety of the Court's Spending Clause jurisprudence is a judicial fabrication to expand federal power without justification.

Unfortunately, the Court has rejected my interpretation of the Spending Clause--just as it has rejected yours. The Court thinks about Spending Clause programs (like Medicaid) by analogizing them to a contract. The federal government makes an offer of funding to the states, and the states accept that offer by agreeing to comply with certain requirements imposed by the federal government. But, just like with a contract, the contract won't be valid if the offeror coerces the offeree's acceptance (using unlawful means). In the contract context, that might mean the offeror can't hold a gun to the offeree's head and demand the offeree agree; in the Spending Clause context, that means the government can't apply so much pressure that the states are left without a meaningful choice, because the federal government lacks the right to compel state compliance (just like the contract offeror lacks the right to compel the offeree's compliance at the point of a gun).

I'll admit that NFIB is a little bit weird, because, presumably, Congress could just repeal Medicaid and start a totally new program ("Better-caid"?), and there would be no problem. But I think that just demonstrates the limits of NFIB as a precedent--and should assuage your fears. The states won't be able to succesfully challenge a federal law simply because it adversely affects them--they'll just be able to challenge federal offers that threaten to revoke existing funding if not accepted (at least where that existing funding is as significant a portion of the state's budget as the Court found in NFIB).

 

[ivysaur12]

"Paul says Obama gets no credit for recovery, and audience cheers."

Paul's answer: "The minimum wage is only harmful when it is above the market wage."

Rubio on min wage: "I’m worried about the people whose minimum wage is going to go down to zero."

@MoElleithee
Kind of GOP debate we’ve been wanting too! MT @nickconfessore: So far, this is the kind of debate/forum GOP donors say they've been wanting

Mo runs communications for the DNC.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yup. And wow, Pennsylvania is just so gerrymandered. Hopefully, Wolf will still be there in 2020 when a new map is drawn.

Democrats need to hold PA and win OH, FL, WI, MI in 2018 to have a chance at fair redistricting, as well as winning VA in 2021. We'd need court action in TX and NC to ensure fair maps there, I'm guessing. Winning the trifecta in NY would be great too.

 

[ivysaur12]

Democrats need to hold PA and win OH, FL, WI, MI in 2018 to have a chance at fair redistricting, as well as winning VA in 2021. We'd need court action in TX and NC to ensure fair maps there, I'm guessing. Winning the trifecta in NY would be great too.

The good thing is that in the cases of PA, OH, FL, WI, and MI, you'd only need to take one of the legislative bodies or the governorship in order to influence the map (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be the case in all of these state?)

 

[Aaron Strife]

The good thing is that in the cases of PA, OH, FL, WI, and MI, you'd only need to take one of the legislative bodies or the governorship in order to influence the map (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be the case in all of these state?)

Yeah. Virginia too. Democrats actually had the State Senate there but they made a deal with the Republicans that they could gerrymander the State Assembly and congressional districts in exchange for the Democrats gerrymandering the State Senate. And surprisingly to absolutely no one, the GOP tried to renege on the deal and even when the Democrats got their gerrymander it was a shitty one and they lost the State Senate anyway.

In North Carolina the legislature draws the maps, governor has no say in it. I think Democrats have a decent chance of picking up the NC governorship next year but for redistricting purposes it won't really matter.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Let me preface by saying Im not trying to doom and gloom but:

If 2018 is like 2014 or 2010, the Democrats can pack it and go home. MI, PA, NM, FL, OH,NV, WI and even MN if Dayton retires will be up. The Democrats suck at mdterms and I see no evidence that they have found a way to fix it. They can have a landslide the size greater than LBJ, Nixon & Reagan combined next year and fall flat on their face in 2 years.

I have no confidence 2018 will be a good Democratic year "presently". Yes things can change but lets not forget 2018 also brings senate seats in play like PA, OH, WI etc.

My opinion x)

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah. Virginia too. Democrats actually had the State Senate there but they made a deal with the Republicans that they could gerrymander the State Assembly and congressional districts in exchange for the Democrats gerrymandering the State Senate. And surprisingly to absolutely no one, the GOP tried to renege on the deal and even when the Democrats got their gerrymander it was a shitty one and they lost the State Senate anyway.

In North Carolina the legislature draws the maps, governor has no say in it. I think Democrats have a decent chance of picking up the NC governorship next year but for redistricting purposes it won't really matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though -- but those states you mentioned do need the governor to sign off on the maps, right?

Let me preface by saying Im not trying to doom and gloom but:

Sure Jan.

 

[benjipwns]

The best part is states with term limits. Because the veteran party (usually now Senators after their House limits are up) ALWAYS pulls the bait-and-switch on whichever party has the most newbies because they're under an assumption that once they vote on and pass one districts plan you're done with that, onto the next piece of business.

Meanwhile the real powerbrokers hash out the actual plan.

There were Democrats crying foul in Michigan that they got fooled because they assumed the conference bill coming back was the same as the one they voted for earlier and so they should get another chance to vote or something.

Second best part is when they look at the last election returns only and not the census reports. And then they wind up drawing districts based on a fluke election that are solid for the other party.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Correct me if I'm wrong, though -- but those states you mentioned do need the governor to sign off on the maps, right?

Virginia does, North Carolina doesn't.

 

[Coriolanus]

Second best part is when they look at the last election returns only and not the census reports. And then they wind up drawing districts based on a fluke election that are solid for the other party.

Referencing something specifically?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Referencing something specifically?

I know Pennsylvania's Congressional map between 2000 and 2010 was a GOP gerrymander that backfired spectacularly in 06 and 08 - which is why I don't think it's necessarily impossible for Democrats to win a majority before the next round of redistricting.