Sauce, geese, and ganders

I’m a little late with this, but this was bound to happen:

A federal judge in Texas struck down the Affordable Care Act on Friday night, ruling that former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic legislation has fallen down like a losing game of “Jenga.”

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth sided with the argument put forward by a coalition of Republican-leaning states, led by Texas, that Obamacare could no longer stand now that there’s no penalty for Americans who don’t buy insurance.

The U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the law in 2012, by classifying the legislation as a tax. But since Congress removed the individual mandate in 2017, O’Connor ruled, there’s no way the ACA can be allowed to stand.

Since Trump’s election, a precedent has been set whereby lower circuit, activist judges have been able to declare various presidential decisions illegal, thus thwarting the will of the White House. The most ludicrous of these was a judge deciding Trump’s temporary halt on immigration from six countries without functioning governments plus Iran was illegal partly on the grounds it might discourage tourism in Washington State. These cases usually have to go to the Supreme Court where the original ruling is struck down or heavily amended, and the White House can get on with its business once more.

One of the major weaknesses of the left is their inability to comprehend that whatever weapon they invent will shortly be wielded against them by their enemies. Hence if lower court judicial activism is now the game being played, they should expect conservative judges to take part sooner or later. Of course, the right doesn’t play as well as the left:

But the White House said that with the ruling expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law will remain in place for now.

This is because they have no alternative, mainly thanks to the uselessness of Paul Ryan and other establishment Republicans. Ultimately, no number of conservative judges willing to make decisions for the cause is going to make up for that.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

11 thoughts on “Sauce, geese, and ganders

  1. I have never understood why the US want judges to rule them.
    Surely politicians should be allowed to change the law?

  2. Off-topic but potentially interesting – Why I Hate Journos Episode

    I read that. Like so many so-called journalists, they’re not there to inform but to reinforce the sense of superiority of their readers, in this case middle class Germans.

  3. I have never understood why the US want judges to rule them.

    I’m not sure they’ve thought it through: they are using judges to circumvent the normal political process, giving the SCOTUS power and influence it was never meant to have. I’m still staggered by what passes for reasoning in the gay marriage ruling.

  4. Its worth throwing decisions like this into the mix just to slow the left down a little and fuck with their heads as they don’t take this type of thing quietly. Anything our side does is fine by me, we just don’t do enough of it.

  5. Its worth throwing decisions like this into the mix just to slow the left down a little and fuck with their heads as they don’t take this type of thing quietly.

    Yup.

    Anything our side does is fine by me, we just don’t do enough of it.

    That too.

  6. “Why I Hate Journos Episode”

    The author of that German article was fired by Der Spiegel because he had been fabricating his stories. Ha!!!

  7. I’m still staggered by what passes for reasoning in the gay marriage ruling.

    Because “marriage” is apparently just welfare for live-in-lovers. Of course that raises the question of why live-in-lovers merit welfare. Their feelings aren’t really a matter of general public interest such that the taxpayer should reward them for doing what they’d do regardless.

    Now if marriage served some socially useful function, like, oh, ensuring that men had equal parental status with women, and thus an emotional investment in the success of their own communities beyond their own lifetimes, *then* there would be a point in extending legal recognition to the institution. But that would mean same-sex couples couldn’t marry (as they can’t impregnate one another), and we can’t have that!

    Gah.

    On the actual topic at hand, what “alternative” (to Obamacare) is needed? Don’t we have this thing called a “market”, wherein service providers and would-be customers negotiate prices? Aside from penalizing bad faith, fraud, and force, why should government have any role health care or medical insurance at all? Let people buy insurance from whatever companies they want (or none), let those companies offer whatever insurance products they want, and let the chips fall where they may. Just don’t use taxpayer money to subsidize people’s bad decisions.

  8. “On the actual topic at hand, what “alternative” (to Obamacare) is needed? Don’t we have this thing called a “market”, wherein service providers and would-be customers negotiate prices?”

    Healthcare throws a monkey wrench in the works. Imatinib (a life saving drug) would not have been invented without huge grants from NCI. Novartis jumped in at the end and got the patent. Their price? $18,000 a month (not a misprint). I’m sure that outrageous price is due to insurance and Medicare, just like mortgage deductions explain high home prices, but still it seems some regulation is necessary.

    The choice isn’t some or no regulation. It’s wise or stupid regulation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *