Tag: king

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to House Republicans stripping Iowa Rep. Steve King of all committee assignments after his controversial comments in the New York Times. Jim also reveals some his interesting discoveries after combing through the record of California Sen. Kamala Harris as she prepares for a 2020 White House run. And they wonder why New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is bothering to run for president and planning to run as a champion of women in a Democratic primary full of them.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to see Republican leaders denounce the latest controversial comments from Iowa Rep. Steve King and argue that while it’s worth defending the greatness of Western Civilization, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. While being perfectly fine with a wall at various points along our southern border, they offer multiple reasons why an emergency declaration to move it forward would be a bad idea now and an even worse precedent for when a Democrat eventually becomes president. And they get a kick out of CNN’s Jim Acosta intending to make an argument against the need for a border wall but accidentally demonstrating why a wall works. And Jim explains how Acosta has become the Hollywood caricature of an arrogant reporter.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss Pres. Trump’s removal of 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys and how many critics fail to mention this happens with every modern administration. They also shake their heads as scores of high-level government appointments have yet to be filled and no nominations have been made. And they wince as Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King says, “We can’t restore our civilization with someone else’s babies.”

More

Member Post

 

Like most everyone here, I’m quite concerned about the effects of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare subsidies yesterday. My concerns are two-fold: first, the policy implications for healthcare; and second, the implications for the rule of law. On the first point, I’m starting to feel ever so slightly better. Had the subsidies been over-turned […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

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

 

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.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Obamacare Architect Confesses

 

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.

More

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

 

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!

More

Member Post

 

No, this isn’t from The Onion. It’s from the official White House Twitter account: Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/white-house-tweets-picture-obama-throne/ More

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.