Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

Sane Center-Left Democrats Attempt to Fight Back Against The Overpowering Communist Elizabeth Warren Wing of Party

Buffett just spoke about how Warren is too hard on those nice old bankers too:

http://www.businessinsider.com/warr...ren-should-be-less-angry-2015-3#ixzz3TLCzR0r8

I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonizing. I believe in 'hate the sin but love the sinner', and I'm not sure that I've fully convinced Elizabeth Warren that that's the way to go.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Warren knows she'll never be president. She won't run. She can do far more in the senate. IMO she's like the liberal Ted Cruz: she's very effective at getting likeminded people elected to congress due to her clout with the base. I'd love to see that continue.

 

[thepotatoman]

Warren knows she'll never be president. She won't run. She can do far more in the senate. IMO she's like the liberal Ted Cruz: she's very effective at getting likeminded people elected to congress due to her clout with the base. I'd love to see that continue.

I still think it's an extremely bad point to make about her "doing more in the senate" seeing as she wouldn't be leaving the senate to run, but it doesn't matter at this point because she's clearly not running.

 

[jamesinclair]

It worked in 2008 and 2012!

What we really need is a president that campaigns on transparency and the oversees massive spying on american citizens while going to extremes to keep their official business concealed.

 

[benjipwns]

What we really need is a president that campaigns on transparency and the oversees massive spying on american citizens while going to extremes to keep their official business concealed.

Personally, I'd like a President who receives a transparency award behind closed doors with the press not allowed.

 

[ivysaur12]

“The rhetoric about wealth creation needs to be scaled back because Americans like wealth creation,” he added. “The level playing field argument wins it for us. The reason you do not want to talk about ‘tax the rich’ is because when middle class people hear it, they hear ‘they're going to raise our taxes.’ Democrats can't do that.”

He's not wrong.

EDIT: POLLS

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/03/mccrory-leads-cooper-by-just-2.html

PPP's newest look at the race for Governor in North Carolina finds it the closest it's been in a while- Pat McCrory leads with 43% to 41% for Roy Cooper. McCrory had led by 5-7 points on the previous two surveys. Cooper's getting a little bit more support from Republicans and independents than he had the last two polls, which could be a real thing and could just be statistical noise.

McCrory's approval numbers remain remarkably stable, with slightly more voters disapproving (44%) than approving (40%) of his performance. In the three polls we've conducted since the conclusion of the 2014 election McCrory's approval has come down at 41/46, 41/45, and now this 40/44 mark. Not much is happening to move voters perceptions of him. Although Cooper only has 55% name recognition, he has generally favorable numbers among those familiar with him as 34% rate him positively to 21% with a negative opinion. McCrory would lead the other potential Democratic candidate, Ken Spaulding, by a 44/35 spread.

Richard Burr's situation remains stable- an approval rating in the low 30s danger zone, but leads of 6-12 points against his most mentioned potential Democratic opponents who are either unknown or unpopular. Burr has a 32% approval, with 37% of voters disapproving of him. He had come in at 31/36 and 34/35 on our previous two surveys, showing the same kind of relative poll to poll stability that McCrory has.

Burr leads Treasurer Janet Cowell 44/38, former Senator Kay Hagan 50/43, former Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx 45/36, and Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines 45/33. For most of the potential hopefuls a lot of their deficit is attributable simply to the fact that they're not very well known. Foxx has 40% name recognition, Cowell 30% name recognition, and Joines 22% name recognition. Being well known isn't a problem for Hagan- 92% of voters have an opinion about her- but there's still no sign of the high negatives all of last year's attack ads created for her wearing off. 54% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of her to only 38% with a positive one, exactly where we found her last month.

Burr is theoretically vulnerable- his approval numbers are low and so far Hillary Clinton is polling pretty well in the state. But it may end up being that someone who doesn't have much to lose- a legislator sick of being in the minority or someone currently out of elected office- ends up being the one to actually take the plunge.

In our first look at next year's contest for Lieutenant Governor, Republican incumbent Dan Forest leads Democratic challenger Linda Coleman 40/35, a slightly greater margin than he won by when the pair first faced off in 2015.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm wondering if there's a better possible candidate than Hagan - she might be damaged goods. But NC doesn't seem to really have a bench outside of Roy Cooper who's already running for governor.

That state senator who showed up on a snow day and passed bills by himself would be cool.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm wondering if there's a better possible candidate than Hagan - she might be damaged goods. But NC doesn't seem to really have a bench outside of Roy Cooper who's already running for governor.

That state senator who showed up on a snow day and passed bills by himself would be cool.

I'm starting to think the same thing. Her unfavorables are too sticky.

Cowell 30% name recognition

And a 38% against Burr's 44. I like that.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's approval rating is at 49% on Gallup (47% disapprove)

But it'll have to be like, 70% if Hillary wants to win! Third term curse!

Also Boehner caved on the DHS stuff. Poor Speaker, having to govern.

 

[jamesinclair]

This guy is unbelievable

President Obama has criticized a Chinese plan to force US tech companies to install backdoors into their products for sale in the country. Without stopping for a moment to consider the phrase about glass houses and stones, he told Reuters that China would have to change its stance if it wanted to do business with the US.

The move comes as part of China's new anti-terrorism law, which would require firms to keep data about their users inside China, hand over encryption keys and delete terrorism-related content. Worse than that, however, is that it would force companies like Google, Microsoft and Apple to poke holes in their software so that local surveillance agencies could spy on their citizens.

Of course, the US can't occupy the moral high ground in this instance, since the country's security services have overstepped the mark on more than one occasion. It's not as if these agencies have learned their lesson, either, since the FBI is still demanding that Apple and Google hand over the encryption keys to its devices, even if there's no evidence that encrypted data hurts investigations.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/03/obama-china-backdoor/#comments

 

[pigeon]

Obama's approval rating is at 49% on Gallup (47% disapprove)

But it'll have to be like, 70% if Hillary wants to win! Third term curse!

Also Boehner caved on the DHS stuff. Poor Speaker, having to govern.

Boehner continues to be a weirdly effective Speaker in terms of allowing a pragmatic majority to govern even when the Republican conversation is dominated by near-militant reactionaries.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

The annoying thing is that gives an argument for Jeb: "Hey Jeb revealed all his e-mails! Why not Hillary?!?!?!??!"

Ppl will interpret any hesitation as an excuse, and it'll be an annoying thing to deal with.

However, this is still early. Let's hope she can explain things clearly and she can deflate it as a non-issue which it really is (in my opinion).

 

[ivysaur12]

POLLS!

HuffPost Pollster ‏@pollsterpolls 3m3 minutes ago
CORRECTED: 2016 National Presidential General Election - Clinton 46%, Walker 41% (Rasmussen Reports 2/28-3/1) http://huff.to/1CqWjso

 

[AndyD]

The annoying thing is that gives an argument for Jeb: "Hey Jeb revealed all his e-mails! Why not Hillary?!?!?!??!"

Ppl will interpret any hesitation as an excuse, and it'll be an annoying thing to deal with.

However, this is still early. Let's hope she can explain things clearly and she can deflate it as a non-issue which it really is (in my opinion).

It's an easy deflect. "Jeb released everything, and your SSN and private information with it. We are choosing to first review all emails to make sure we reveal no private or national defense information that would help our enemies or harm our allies". Done.

 

[ivysaur12]

Sahil Kapur ‏@sahilkapur
Sen. Barrasso speaks of a "temporary bridge" GOP has planned to protect those harmed if King wins at SCOTUS. No deets.

I thought they had a plan but where are the details. I wait with bated breath for the Republican's Obamacare alternative!

EDIT: Whoa, less than 24 hours until oral arguments for King v. Burwell. Metaphoreous, are you camping overnight to get a spot inside?

 

[benjipwns]

EDIT: Whoa, less than 24 hours until oral arguments for King v. Burwell. Metaphoreous, are you camping overnight to get a spot inside?

I heard that he's going to be the one making the arguments for King. Don't remember where I saw that.

 

[Wilsongt]

I thought they had a plan but where are the details. I wait with bated breath for the Republican's Obamacare alternative!

EDIT: Whoa, less than 24 hours until oral arguments for King v. Burwell. Metaphoreous, are you camping overnight to get a spot inside?

His champagne is ready because he is going to pop that cork as soon as the SC guts the ACA.

 

[ivysaur12]

I heard that he's going to be the one making the arguments for King. Don't remember where I saw that.

I would honestly believe that.

 

[PhoenixDark]

On one hand I sense that the case could be a 6-3 victory for the law...but on the other hand there are plenty of hand wringing pieces over a 5-4 "congress will fix it lol" potential decision.

I can't help but think that the SC will do what they always do under Roberts: rule in favor of corporations. Which means the subsidies will prevail.

 

[benjipwns]

If Kennedy sides with the government, Roberts will go with him to write the decision. Otherwise Roberts will pull out his prior ruling about how it's not the Court's "job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

I don't see why Roberts would be the fifth vote on the governments side, but I suppose it's possible like before. (Since the other part of that case was 7-2 against the government.) Though Roberts wasn't technically a "fifth vote", I don't see where he pulls that voodoo out of this time like he did with the penaltax.

 

[Fenderputty]

I would honestly believe that.

I think he heard it from Diablos. lol

His champagne is ready because he is going to pop that cork as soon as the SC guts the ACA.

I'm not sure he's showed any emotion one way or the other over the outcome regardless of his legal beliefs on the matter. Though the "rah rah freedom" people tend to think we should just let someone die who've not been responsible enough to plan for medical insurance. I highly doubt he considers this a slight, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ivysaur12]

Sahil Kapur ‏@sahilkapur 2m2 minutes ago
Clean DHS bill is sailing to passage in the House. 250+ yeas so far, mostly Dems. Most Republicans are voting nay.

S.V. Dáte ‏@svdate 2m2 minutes ago
After months of drama, House passes DHS funding bill with no riders blocking immigration actions:

GOP: 75 YES, 167 NO
Dems: 182 YES, 0 NO

.

If Kennedy sides with the government, Roberts will go with him to write the decision. Otherwise Roberts will pull out his prior ruling about how it's not the Court's "job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

I go back and forth on where I think they'll land, but luckily, we have oral arguments tomorrow!

 

[jamesinclair]

.
GOP: 75 YES, 167 NO
Dems: 182 YES, 0 NO!

And this is why people vote GOP.

The dems are the party of intrusive government and TSA wands up everybodys asshole.

Fuck the DHS.

 

[Poodlestrike]

And this is why people vote GOP.

The dems are the party of intrusive government and TSA wands up everybodys asshole.

Fuck the DHS.

Funds or no funds, TSA agents would still be sodomizing you, they'd just be extra disgruntled due to not being paid to do it. Does your butthole want to risk them taking that out on you?

 

[ivysaur12]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-gop-leaders-health-care-bill-supreme-court?utm_content=buffer80f16&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders wouldn't commit Tuesday to having health care legislation ready by June to avert a potential crisis if the Supreme Court wipes out Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans.

One day before Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, TPM asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at his weekly Capitol press conference if the GOP would have bill ready to mitigate the potential health care crisis.

The short answer: We're working on it, but won't commit to anything.

"Well, we won't know what the Court is going to decide probably until June," McConnell said, before turning the mic over to Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair John Barrasso (R-WY), his point person on health care.

What?! I am SHOCKED.

But I bet they'll have something by June. Right? Right?!

 

[FiggyCal]

And this is why people vote GOP.

The dems are the party of intrusive government and TSA wands up everybodys asshole.

Fuck the DHS.

What airports are you going to?
I guess I've never had a problem with the TSA.

 

[Poodlestrike]

What airports are you guys going to?

SEATAC After Dark.

 

[Wilsongt]

I have never been violated or wanded by a TSA agent and frankly it's insulted. I'm not good enough

 

[Trouble]

I have never been violated or wanded by a TSA agent and frankly it's insulted. I'm not good enough

I was one of those jerks that refused to get in the naked scanner and made a random stranger touch me instead. The new scanners are OK with me, since they don't display a naked picture of you to a random pervert stranger.

 

[StopMakingSense]

And this is why people vote GOP.

The dems are the party of intrusive government and TSA wands up everybodys asshole.

Fuck the DHS.

But this whole thing had zero to do with the TSA, or DHS, really. To extrapolate it as an opinion by either party on either agency is... really weird.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Uh, no shit...and how is this a weakness?

As I said, a condition to raising the argument resolves it. If your issue is resolved before it can be raised, then it isn't a winning issue--in fact, it never becomes an issue, period. This is a straightforward point, but because you insist on contradicting it, let me explain in more detail.

The principal question in King is whether the IRS rule permitting credits on FFEs is permissible in light of the statutory provision under which the IRS purports to act. In answering this question, the Supreme Court will rely primarily on the doctrine first established in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.. That doctrine provides that, in determining whether an agency regulation is lawful, a court engages in a two-step process. Under the first step, the court determines "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." If the court answers that question in the negative, then it must further determine "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Assume, for present purposes, that the challengers lose the case if they lose on that first question.

The issue you keep trying to raise is the doctrine stated in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman. In that case, the Court explained, "legislation enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions. The legitimacy of Congress' power to legislate under the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the 'contract.' There can, of course, be no knowing acceptance if a State is unaware of the conditions or is unable to ascertain what is expected of it. Accordingly, if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously" (citations omitted). This language demonstrates several problems with the issue you're trying to raise: first, you can see that the doctrine only applies when a state "accepts the terms of the 'contract'" (emphasis added). Where a state rejects the terms of the "contract," there is no Pennhurst problem, because its acceptance is a precondition for applying the doctrine. Second, even assuming that Pennhurst is relevant to this case, the requirement is that Congress impose conditions "unambiguously"--the same standard used in step one of the Chevron analysis. In other words, if the plaintiffs win at Chevron step one, they win on Pennhurst.

But you haven't mentioned Pennhurst. Instead, you mentioned a later case that applies the doctrine, Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy. In that case, after quoting Pennhurst, the Court formulates the test somewhat differently: "we must view the IDEA from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept IDEA funds and the obligations that go with those funds. We must ask whether such a state official would clearly understand that one of the obligations of the Act is the obligation to compensate prevailing parents for expert fees. In other words, we must ask whether the IDEA furnishes clear notice regarding the liability at issue in this case." But this is simply a different way of saying what Pennhurst said. When the Court refers to "the perspective of a state official," it isn't saying that courts should poll actual state officials; it isn't inviting courts to admit evidence of what state officials understood the statute to mean. If it were, it would have mentioned such evidence in the remainder of its opinion or remanded to the district court so such evidence could be admitted, but it does neither. It's simply creating a hypothetical character (similar to the ubiquitous "reasonable person") as an analytical vehicle. The question remains, having accepted the deal offered by Congress, is such-and-such requirement clearly (or unambiguously) one of the conditions imposed by the offer? But because the states with FFEs in King rejected the federal government's offer, this case has no application here. (And, in any event, the requirement is that the restriction be unambiguous under both tests, so if it satisfies one, it satisfies the other.)

You try to rebut this argument later:

The Clear Notice doctrine is important and cannot undone because the offer was rejected rather than accepted. The Clear Notice doctrine means the offer must be known unambiguously, regardless.

Yet you offer no citation, nor could you. Needless to say, your ipse dixit carries little persuasive force.

It is perprosterous to argue that the SCOTUS says states cannot accept conditions they unaware of but can subsequently reject conditions they are unaware of.

Not at all; the different treatments make perfect sense. It's unfair to hold a person who accepts an offer to obscure terms included in the offer, just as it would be unfair to hold a person whose offer has been rejected to an obscure term in the rejected offer simply because the term was obscure. What matters in the latter case is that the offer was rejected, not that the term was obscure. If you don't believe me, go reject a contract offer that includes an ambiguous term, then see what court will compel the offeror to perform the term on account of its ambiguity.

But there is no way a rational person can read the context of the entire law and assume the subsidies were only intended for the states. It makes no sense. It only works in isolation.

Also, in yates, Alito dissented from what you just said, so it has happened.

Regarding your first paragraph, I'm not sure I can make my case any better than I already have. Your reliance on "context" is empty--you think that the fact that the statute includes other words is enough to change the meaning of the words used in 36B. I've addressed the context of the statute pretty thoroughly, showing that, at worst, it doesn't support the government's argument.

Regarding Yates, Alito concurred. He didn't dissent.

You ask why Congress would set up an Exchange doomed to fail. There are a number of possible responses: first, Congress might not think a subsidy-less Exchange would fail or otherwise threaten the insurance market in a state. Second, Congress might have only included a fallback exchange to avoid the argument that it was commandeering states (which is a far more plausible explanation for the proliferation of the phrase "established by the State" throughout the statute than the government's "term of art" argument, btw). Third, Congress might have assumed that the deal it was offering to states to establish their own exchanges was so good that none would reject it (and there is extra-textual evidence--your favorite kind, I know--to support this view).

Didn't I already show something akin to this with the CBO's scoring of a bill introduced after the ACA (where they didn't really specify anything regarding the bolded anyway)?

I digress, however, with a related question that might provide better contextual basis for the CBO links I'm about to post: When, exactly, was the IRS's rule put into place?

Yes, you and I did discuss that. I remembered someone had discussed the CBO with me before, but I couldn't remember who or when. Suffice to say that post-enactment legislative history is accepted by no judge.

Ultimately, without a statement of the assumptions underlying their calculations (i.e., we assume that every state will establish an exchange or we assume that X states will establish an exchange and the others will be served by an FFE), it's impossible to use their estimates to interpret 36B (if we're giving up on interpreting it by, you know, reading it). As I said, credits-in-every-state would be the outcome if either (a) credits are limited to state-established exchanges and every state would establish an exchange (as 1311 undeniably purports to require) or (b) credits are available on any exchange. And, as Michael Cannon pointed out in the article I linked to yesterday, the CBO's estimates relating to credits in earlier bills also ignored the undeniable limitation of those credits, and also ignored the possibility that states would reject PPACA's own Medicaid expansion.

Oh, and the IRS rule was initially proposed in August 2011 and finalized in May 2012.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Thanks for answering that, at least - nothing I could find on Google or Wiki actually had any notation of when it was proposed or implemented.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Thanks for answering that, at least - nothing I could find on Google or Wiki actually had any notation of when it was proposed or implemented.

See the section of this article beginning on page 135. It includes further citations.

 

[Wilsongt]

This whole Bibi speech was such a spectacle of uselessness.

Had Obama brought in the president of Iran or someone from Saudi Arabia to speak in front of congress, the GOP would have impeached him before Bams could have put the phone back onto the ringer.

 

[benjipwns]

Here's a question, if Obama had attended the speech, where would he have sat?

Because like usually Presidents are the ones giving the speech to Joint Sessions so they don't need a special seat.

 

[B-Dubs]

Here's a question, if Obama had attended the speech, where would he have sat?

Because like usually Presidents are the ones giving the speech to Joint Sessions so they don't need a special seat.

Over his right shoulder, so he could make funny faces during the speech like Biden does during the SotU.

 

[benjipwns]

Then where does Biden sit in his role as President of the Senate?!?

Obama should call a special session of Congress to address this immediately.

 

[B-Dubs]

Then where does Biden sit in his role as President of the Senate?!?

Obama should call a special session of Congress to address this immediately.

Biden sits next to him, in Boehner's seat. Boehner sits with the rest of the House and Senate.

 

[benjipwns]

I was thinking they should all sit back there on a special bench with the President getting the middle seat so he has to sit all scrunched up with his arms in front of him the whole time.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Also Boehner caved on the DHS stuff. Poor Speaker, having to govern.

Truthfully, I think caving is failing to govern. If he thinks the president is in the wrong on DAPA, he should be fighting him with Congress' power, not hoping the courts will step in and side with him.

EDIT: Whoa, less than 24 hours until oral arguments for King v. Burwell. Metaphoreous, are you camping overnight to get a spot inside?

I wish.

Spoiler

OR DO I?

 

[Fenderputty]

Truthfully, I think caving is failing to govern. If he thinks the president is in the wrong on DAPA, he should be fighting him with Congress' power, not hoping the courts will step in and side with him.

You support the ability for Congress to shutdown parts of the government using people's actual income as a bargaining chip for negations on unrelated matters?

 

[Metaphoreus]

You support the ability for Congress to shutdown parts of the government using people's actual income as a bargaining chip for negations on unrelated matters?

I don't think anybody wants a shutdown. But I do support Congress using its power over appropriations to compel the president to fulfill (or prevent the president from avoiding) his Constitutional obligation to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

 

[Trouble]

Biden sits next to him, in Boehner's seat. Boehner sits with the rest of the House and Senate.

That would have actually been amazing, since Boehner started these shenanigans.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Lobbying the Supreme Court

King v. Burwell has given me the oddest sense of deja vu. I’ve commented to several friends, “We’ve been here before.” Before it even began, I sensed an imminent effort to lobby the Chief Justice. And, shortly after certiorari was granted, this effort began. Since then, there has been an onslaught of blog posts, articles, and even amicus briefs that make the naked argument that the Court–the Chief in particular–should not invalidate the IRS Rule because it would amount to a partisan decision divesting innocent people of their subsidies, and corrupt the Court as an institution. These are separate, and apart, from briefs that make various textual or structural arguments about how to interpret the ACA (including my own), which I have no problem with. Why shouldn’t those on the left make these types of arguments? As I discuss in Unprecedented, they worked the first time around. So, the argument goes, let’s do it again.

...

As before, politicians are starting to get involved in the lobbying effort. The President, who three years ago compared a decision invalidating the individual mandate to “Lochner,” has preemptively called a decision invalidating the IRS rule “bad law.”

“If they rule against us, we’ll have to take a look at what our options are. But I’m not going to anticipate that,” President Obama said Monday in an interview with Reuters. “I’m not going to anticipate bad law.”

Bad law. The President has already delegitimized a decision of the Court, without even reading it. In another interview, he said there is no “plausible legal basis” to invalidate the rule. Whether or not the result is correct, there are hundreds of articles, briefs, and essays making at least a “plausible” cause. It would survive Iqbal. But for now, the effort is to render the opinion void ab initio.

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration claims to have no plan whatsoever if the Court invalidates the IRS Rule. But that isn’t the important revelation. What is significant, is the administration signaled that they were deliberately not implementing a plan

Administration officials insist that any steps they could take to prepare for the potential crisis would be politically unworkable and ineffective, and that pursuing them would wrongly signal to the justices that reasonable solutions exist. The do-nothing strategy is meant to reinforce for the court what White House officials believe: that a loss in the health care case would be unavoidably disastrous for millions of people.

Think about that for a moment. Some administration official is openly signaling to the Times that the White House isn’t even thinking of a Plan B, in the hope that such a “reasonable solution” may assuage the Justices to invalidate for a rule. . . .

On the flipside, Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI) has charged that proposals by Republicans to fix the subsidies are sending a “false message” to the Court.

“Republicans are trying to send a false message to the Supreme Court that they could repair the enormous damage that this case could bring to the health care of Americans when they cannot even address basic funding for the Department of Homeland Security,” he continued. “This plan is vacuous. The result of an adverse Supreme Court ruling would be hugely dangerous.”

Democrats are claiming to have no plan, in order to signal to the Court that they should uphold the Rule. Republicans are claiming to have a plan, in order to signal to the Court they should invalidate the Rule.

Interesting times.

 

[benjipwns]

James Taranto has been beating that drum. First regarding Linda Greenhouse. I think she got right to the "THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT" argument the day the Court said it was taking the case.

EDIT:
Knew I posted some of this before: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151670474&postcount=9118

Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times Supreme Court reporter, stunningly suggests in a recent article that the justices need to be scolded into “reading the briefs” in a pending case. She concludes with an astonishing rhetorical flourish: Like Lucille Ball, the Court will “have a great deal of explaining to do” if it fails to rule in the manner she suggests.

...

Greenhouse is “plenty disturbed” that the Supreme Court would even deign to hear a case challenging certain Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. She writes that the plaintiffs’ arguments are so frivolous they represent a “partisan war” rather than a legal case and that ruling in their favor would put the Court “in peril.” She is badly mistaken.

Just one point to add to this post:

Linda Greenhouse closes by addressing the justices and grandiosely warning them that if “you” vote for the challengers in King v. Burwell, “you will have a great deal of explaining to do—not to me, but to history.”

It’s difficult not to conclude that Greenhouse thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the Left’s efforts to intimidate Chief Justice Roberts in the first Obamacare case worked and are worth repeating.

 

[B-Dubs]

I was thinking they should all sit back there on a special bench with the President getting the middle seat so he has to sit all scrunched up with his arms in front of him the whole time.

Funny, but it's not quite as funny as Obama and Biden making faces behind Bibi in the style of Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[ivysaur12]

Metaphoreous is clearly Michael A. Carvin.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Metaphoreous is clearly Michael A. Carvin.

Is that who's arguing it? I was hoping they'd get Paul Clement again. Though, I guess that might have been tricky, given that he just argued the Arizona redistricting case yesterday.

 

[ivysaur12]

Is that who's arguing it? I was hoping they'd get Paul Clement again. Though, I guess that might have been tricky, given that he just argued the Arizona redistricting case yesterday.

Nice try, Mikey.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Saw my first 2016 bumper sticker today.

It was for Ben Carson.