Trump’s DOJ Advises Court to Invalidate Obamacare

 

Remember when Obama’s DOJ decided not to defend laws that they didn’t like? And how people warned of the horrible precedent they were setting? Looks like Trump remembers and his first target is Obama’s most prized accomplishment.

The Justice Department has informed a federal appeals court that it agrees with the ruling of a Texas judge who invalidated Obamacare. The administration said that the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.

“The Department of Justice has determined that the district court’s comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal,” said Kerri Kupec, spokesperson for the Justice Department.

It’s a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement — protections for people with pre-existing conditions — could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.

After the Justice Department took that position, federal District Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the entire law and the case is currently before a federal appeals court.

“Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Tags: , ,

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    On the first day of trump-mas the president gave to me,

    The end to a retarded conspiracy theory

    On the second day of trump-mas the president gave to me,

    The indictment of avenatti,

    On the third day of trump-mas the president gave to me,

    The repeal of Obamacare on a technicality,

    ….

     

    • #1
  2. Sheila Johnson Member
    Sheila Johnson
    @SheilaJohnson

    But it’s Easter:  

    Here comes Donald Trumpy-tail

    Hopping down the Bunny Trail

    Hippety-Hoppity O-Care is deceased!

    • #2
  3. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    This sounds wonderful, but the ACA is intertwined throughout our health care system. I wonder what it will mean to repeal the law at this point. 

    • #3
  4. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Wow. Just… wow!

    Donald Trump, doing the work the GOPe promised, but ultimately refused to do. 

    How many more body-blows can Democrats take? 

    • #4
  5. JamesSalerno Coolidge
    JamesSalerno
    @JamesSalerno

    Is the wall finally coming? Tune in next week to find out! Same Trump time, same Trump channel! 

    • #5
  6. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Here, “Justice” John “Bushie” Roberts’ complicity in the Russia Hoax comes to bear. Expose his hand-picked FISA judges with the unredacted FISA applications. Then carpet bomb him with tweets, first about his complicity in the Russia Hoax and then tying in his lawless (under color of law) behavior in both this and the Obamacare decision. Place him in the position of reversing himself or destroying the reputation of the court he supposedly acted to save.

    • #6
  7. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Great news. It should never have been declared constitutional in the first place, and Justice Roberts bears a burden of shame.

    • #7
  8. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Great news. It should never have been declared constitutional in the first place, and Justice Roberts bears a burden of shame.

    Exactly. Which is why I advocate for President Trump Twitter-bombing him continuously, first with the FISA court frauds (for which he bears supervisory responsibility) and then linking that outrage to his Obamacare decision deception.

    Just as President Trump understood and prepped the “collusion” battlefield with “fake news” and “witch hunt,” let’s see if he starts prepping the Supreme Court’s corruption.

    • #8
  9. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Great news. It should never have been declared constitutional in the first place, and Justice Roberts bears a burden of shame.

    Exactly. Which is why I advocate for President Trump Twitter-bombing him continuously, first with the FISA court frauds (for which he bears supervisory responsibility) and then linking that outrage to his Obamacare decision deception.

    Just as President Trump understood and prepped the “collusion” battlefield with “fake news” and “witch hunt,” let’s see if he starts prepping the Supreme Court’s corruption.

    I think of Roberts every April when I get a tax penalty of over $800 for refusing to join Obamacare. Phooey.

    • #9
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Couldn’t happen to the signature law of a nicer Best President in Our Lifetime. 

    • #10
  11. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    TBA (View Comment):

    Couldn’t happen to the signature law of a nicer Best President in Our Lifetime.

    The seas will part!

    • #11
  12. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    “My name is Obamandias, King of Kings!
    Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains.

    • #12
  13. Joseph Eagar Member
    Joseph Eagar
    @JosephEagar

    So, this could really kill Trump in 2020.  It might also lead Trump to support single-payer, much as certain conservative podcasters who will not be named came close to doing during the repeal debate early last year.  

    • #13
  14. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This sounds wonderful, but the ACA is intertwined throughout our health care system. I wonder what it will mean to repeal the law at this point.

    Perhaps the possibility of real reform reinforcing liberty and our tattered Constitution.

    • #14
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    And with a pen and a phone, Trump proves that what is wrought with a pen and a phone can be unwrought in the same fashion.

    So much for the legacy.

    • #15
  16. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This sounds wonderful, but the ACA is intertwined throughout our health care system. I wonder what it will mean to repeal the law at this point.

    It means everyone who gets a benefit under this program will be paraded in front of the media because Republicans are evil.

    • #16
  17. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    The Republicans who never met a Democrat they didn’t like and a conservative they did will lead the Resistance.

    • #17
  18. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This sounds wonderful, but the ACA is intertwined throughout our health care system. I wonder what it will mean to repeal the law at this point.

    It means everyone who gets a benefit under this program will be paraded in front of the media because Republicans are evil.

    And the  10 times greater number punished by it will still be in the shadows….

    So here’s the opening for those Bright Folks in the GOP leadership to bring out the alternative they have perfected in the what? 8 years they have had to work on it.

    I knew you would find that a hoot.

    • #18
  19. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    This actually presents a problem, in a technical way.  There is a danger of collusion when the current administration doesn’t like a particular law.  It will be disinclined to defend the law, which undermines the adversary process.  It is generally the duty of the executive branch to advocate for the constitutionality of a duly enacted law, whether the executive likes it or not.

    I think that there was a similar situation in California a few years back, after Proposition 8 (the constitutional amendment passed in 2008 banning SSM).  If I remember correctly, it was challenged on the federal constitutional grounds that ultimately led to the Obergefell decision, and the California AG (I think  it was Jerry Brown) didn’t want to defend the California constitution.  He wanted it overruled.

    This is generally handled by appointing something like a special counsel to advocate for the government, or through amicus briefs.

    • #19
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    This actually presents a problem, in a technical way. There is a danger of collusion when the current administration doesn’t like a particular law. It will be disinclined to defend the law, which undermines the adversary process. It is generally the duty of the executive branch to advocate for the constitutionality of a duly enacted law, whether the executive likes it or not.

    I think that there was a similar situation in California a few years back, after Proposition 8 (the constitutional amendment passed in 2008 banning SSM). If I remember correctly, it was challenged on the federal constitutional grounds that ultimately led to the Obergefell decision, and the California AG (I think it was Jerry Brown) didn’t want to defend the California constitution. He wanted it overruled.

    This is generally handled by appointing something like a special counsel to advocate for the government, or through amicus briefs.

    The government should defend all laws.

    However, if one party won’t, it is suicide to not follow suit.

    • #20
  21. RyanFalcone Member
    RyanFalcone
    @RyanFalcone

    I like it but the timing is bad. As some have mentioned, this will hurt a lot (but a minority) of people. The pain for them will be temporary but the Democrat media complex will draw this out through the election.

    Remember, ObamaCare was a real stinker among the people but the media harping on how majestic it is non-stop at maximum decibels has actually turned it into a popular policy today.

    The best bet is to make it illegal but draw out the dismembering of it past the election. That would also give the idiots in DC time to come up with a real solution and if we win in 2020, an actual market-based solution could be the answer! If the chaos created then hurts, we may only lose in the legislature until the pain subsides.

    • #21
  22. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This sounds wonderful, but the ACA is intertwined throughout our health care system. I wonder what it will mean to repeal the law at this point.

    About what it means when you eliminate a stage 4 cancer I would imagine.

    • #22
  23. JamesSalerno Coolidge
    JamesSalerno
    @JamesSalerno

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This sounds wonderful, but the ACA is intertwined throughout our health care system. I wonder what it will mean to repeal the law at this point.

    It means everyone who gets a benefit under this program will be paraded in front of the media because Republicans are evil.

    Did these people exist before Obamacare? What did they do then? The media is telling me they were dropping dead in the streets!!!

    • #23
  24. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    I think people might be overestimating the strength of this legal argument, and its ability to triumph outside this peculiar judge in Texas. Remember Congress had the ability to repeal the law when it brought the mandate tax to zero, but it didn’t. That seems like it implies that the law can stand without the revenue from the tax. Also I think technically the tax is not gone it is just set to zero, and in the future it could be raised again by a different Congress. 

    The Congress may have made the law unworkable in a practical sense, but passing a stupid law isn’t actually unconstitutional. I doubt higher courts will rule this way. So dont get your hopes up. 

    • #24
  25. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    I think people might be overestimating the strength of this legal argument, and its ability to triumph outside this peculiar judge in Texas. Remember Congress had the ability to repeal the law when it brought the mandate tax to zero, but it didn’t. That seems like it implies that the law can stand without the revenue from the tax. Also I think technically the tax is not gone it is just set to zero, and in the future it could be raised again by a different Congress.

    The Congress may have made the law unworkable in a practical sense, but passing a stupid law isn’t actually unconstitutional. I doubt higher courts will rule this way. So dont get your hopes up.

    Yes. It’s unlikely you’ll find many judges willing to take away a government benefit.

    • #25
  26. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    In this window of opportunity, wouldn’t be great and helpful to everyone if the federal government, or even the states, could make health insurance deductible for individuals as it is for businesses. We’d instantly get more money flowing through the health care system and more good health while we’re at it. 

    Of course, this would take the government’s actually caring about the people they are governing. 

    • #26
  27. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    I think people might be overestimating the strength of this legal argument, and its ability to triumph outside this peculiar judge in Texas. Remember Congress had the ability to repeal the law when it brought the mandate tax to zero, but it didn’t. That seems like it implies that the law can stand without the revenue from the tax. Also I think technically the tax is not gone it is just set to zero, and in the future it could be raised again by a different Congress.

    The Congress may have made the law unworkable in a practical sense, but passing a stupid law isn’t actually unconstitutional. I doubt higher courts will rule this way. So dont get your hopes up.

    Yes. It’s unlikely you’ll find many judges willing to take away a government benefit.

    And ACA has managed to kill off much of the pre-existing health structure (not too hard, it wasn’t much of a structure to begin with) so it is half-way to indispensable. 

    The problem is that we have more more lifespan and medicine than we do means to pay for it. 

    • #27
  28. Shauna Hunt Coolidge
    Shauna Hunt
    @ShaunaHunt

    I don’t qualify for Medicaid and Obamacare is too expensive so I’m not insured. There is nothing for people who are sick and fall through the cracks.

    • #28
  29. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Shauna Hunt (View Comment):

    I don’t qualify for Medicaid and Obamacare is too expensive so I’m not insured. There is nothing for people who are sick and fall through the cracks.

    Ironic isn’t it. This is the very problem we were promised was solved.

    • #29
  30. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Shauna Hunt (View Comment):

    I don’t qualify for Medicaid and Obamacare is too expensive so I’m not insured. There is nothing for people who are sick and fall through the cracks.

    Ironic isn’t it. This is the very problem we were promised was solved.

    Which isn’t to say that the ACA didn’t accomplish somebody’s goals. 

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.