Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.”
Published in Healthcare
Oh come on. The “conservative” (more like anarcho-capitalist) legal movement has done more to make single-payer possible than the law’s original authors, liberal activists and the far left combined. At some point we have to ask ourselves why we’re letting a bunch of libertarian extremists run the GOP’s legal institutions. Leftists are ecstatic over the prospect of ObamaCare’s market reforms being ruled unconstitutional by the courts, which is pretty much what the Federalist Society types have been trying to do for years.
Kevin Williamson came awfully close last year to endorsing single-payer as a valid alternative to the hated, evil ObamaCare. There have to be limits on that sort of dumb partisanship; if nothing else, eventually the Democrats will realize they can get whatever policy they want simply by passing it’s opposite when they’re in power, then wait for the GOP to push the policy they want in opposition.
During the war in Vietnam, this was known as destroying the village to save it.
I think the legal point raised by @valiuth is very strong and anticipate the Appeals Court will overrule the District Court whatever position the Trump DOJ takes. In 2017 the Republican Congress had the opportunity to take the position that the ACA no longer made sense once the mandate tax was zeroed out and did not do so, the implication being the law can stand without it being in place.
My point is not which outcome I would prefer as a matter of policy, but rather that the District Court’s decision is built on shaky legal foundations.
Your recollection on California Prop 8 is correct. The California AG refused to defend it, the 9th Circuit found that those who wanted to challenge it did not have standing to do so and the Supreme Court agreed. Thus, the majority who voted for Prop 8 lost the legal ability to challenge it, and Prop 8 was overturned on procedural grounds. When I was in law school in the 1970s, I was taught that all good liberals opposed Legal Formalism. However, I guess when it gets you to the right result Formalism is okay. Lesson learned!