Tag: Halbig

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. “Accidental Transparency,” or “Nemesis Exacts Her Retribution on Jonathan Gruber. Again”

DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
By DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Coolidge
DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone is a member of Ricochet.
|
36 COMMENTS
 

In the wake of a mini-scandal in which Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber committed another Kinsley gaffe, he went on friendly MSNBC yesterday and did a non-apology apology, saying he regretted speaking off the cuff, but not a word of regret about being accomplice to an economy-destroying series of lies.

This is sort of like his previous caught-on-video “speak-o” regarding the question of subsidies (which is going before the Supreme Court) where he claims to have just misspoken that one time, and then of course immediately after that, the fates conspired to reveal a second video where he made the same “speak-o.” Oops.

Preview Open

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Obamacare Architect Confesses

Jon Gabriel, Ed.
By Jon Gabriel, Ed.
Jon Gabriel, Ed. King
Jon Gabriel (a.k.a., @ExJon on Twitter) is the Editor-in-Chief of Ricochet. He is a political writer and marketing consultant, contributing articles to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and USA Today among others. Until 2012, he served as Director of Marketing for the free-market Goldwater Institute, where he converted policy initiatives into compelling stories. In the private sector, Jon led marketing efforts for Cold Stone Creamery, Honeywell, and several technology companies. In his… [more]
|
29 COMMENTS
 

Jonathan Gruber is known as one of the architects of Obamacare. Soon, he might be known as the guy who brought it tumbling down.

Last summer, as a federal appeals court considered Halbig vs. Burwell, a 2012 video surfaced of Gruber denying the Obama administration’s current position on the issue. HHS insisted that exchanges “established by the State” was a mere “typo;” Gruber’s old video insisted that precise phrasing was by design. The court ruled against the administration, creating panic among the progressive commentariat.

Preview Open

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Will the Newest Obamacare Challenge Succeed at the Supreme Court?

John Yoo
By John Yoo
John Yoo Contributor
John Yoo is professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2001 to 2003, he served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department of President George W. Bush. He also served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary… [more]
|
34 COMMENTS
 

I’ve been asked a lot recently what I think of the Supreme Court’s decision to take up King v. Burwell, one of the legal challenges to the IRS’s decision to allow tax credits and subsidies to be applied to federal insurance exchanges, even though the text of the law seems to indicate that they’re only allowed on exchanges established by the states. I think the chances are high that the administration will lose because:

1. The plain text of the statute denies subsidies to people who live in states without an exchange. This reading is not absurd, because it creates a powerful incentive for states to create an exchange in the first place. The obvious meaning of the text should only be discarded if it creates absurd or ridiculous results. We shouldn’t discount the possibility that the Justices just want to do the right thing!

Preview Open

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Liberal Commentators Unserious and Undemocratic Response to Halbig

Howard Slugh
By Howard Slugh
Howard Slugh Inactive
|
12 COMMENTS
 

Liberal commentators endorse a peculiar method of statutory interpretation to support their claim that Obamacare (“the ACA”) provides for subsidies on both State and Federal Exchanges. They argue that the private intent of specific legislators and even staffers should replace the plain text of the statute. This method of interpretation would prove unworkable and inconsistent with democratic norms.

In one particularly egregious example of this argument, the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent cites a draft of Obamacare that was passed by a Senate committee but never became law. This unpassed version of the law explicitly authorized subsidies on Federal Exchanges. Sargent claims this version of the law embodies Congress’s “true intent.” He wants courts to ignore the bill that was actually passed and to effectuate the supposed will of Congress.

Preview Open