He never promised us a Rose Garden. He promised winning and beautiful.
10 Likes
I foresee this becoming the next debt ceiling/government shutdown wherein reactionary Rs think they can extract massive concessions and end up sending through a clean motion. Hostage situations never end well.
3 Likes
No, they arenât. But you try getting a malignant narcissist to understand that in any way that matters. 
13 Likes
Yes it does, but as @j.dave pointed out above the House has refused to appropriate the funds to make the CSR payments authorized by the ACA. Obama fashioned a work around to fund the payments and the GOP controlled House then sued the Obama administration. Unless and until the House appropriates the funds DT can undo the Obama work around and stop the CSR payments.
10 Likes
Excellent observation.
14 Likes
If this happens, Trump & the Republicans own the carnage. They can try to blame President Obama and the Democrats but this catastrophe will be theirs. Mitch knows it, Paul Ryan knows it and their caucuses know it.
13 Likes
O yeah. It would be an unmitigated disaster and it would not have a thing to do with the Democrats.
5 Likes
How Conway got her job
2 Likes
Andy Slavitt has a great thread going on Twitter on this today. He links to this article by Oliver Wyman about how it could all backfire:
Full disclosure- I have not read the whole article, but looks interesting⌠I am going to stop obsessing for the day, and go to the beach! 
6 Likes
Heâs insane and should be removed as fast as possible.
7 Likes
Too late. They already own it.
8 Likes
In normal times, a president sadistically threatening to cut off insurance payments to destroy a valid law would be a per se impeachable offense. Will the GOP Congress let Don the Con do this or do they still elevate party over country?
5 Likes
Like all Presidents (and cabinet officials), Trump took an oath to âfaithfully executeâ the duly-enacted laws of our country.
Since Obamacare remains the law of our land, if Trump does anything to undermine or subvert it (through omission or commission), then his behavior should be added to the list of âhigh crimes and misdemeanorsâ which articles of impeachment will serve as documentation of his abuse of power.
Another impeachment article should mention Trumpâs recent recommendation before law enforcement officers that they should physically abuse individuals in their custody â which is a violation of both state and federal laws.
11 Likes
The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty is a tax, so the liability doesnât go away even if the IRS processes your return without you providing proof of insurance or filling out the lines related to the penalty.
If you leave the lines blank (versus falsely claiming that you had insurance) it would be treated as an error. The IRS can demand payment of back taxes due to error, along with any related interest and penalties, for up to three years past the due date of the return or the actual filing date â whichever is later.
I doubt a new President would tell the IRS to search past returns for such filers unless there was strong public opinion against them. However, I could see a new administration quietly giving the nod to enforcing the penalty on those selected for random audit or those who end up subject to enforcement for other reasons.
7 Likes
By what authority can these payments be stopped by executive order? That would be a pretty odd law.
Administratively gutting a law you donât like and canât repeal legislatively is heading into 2nd / 3rd world country territory.
2 Likes
It should be challenged in court if you ask me but of course, no oneâs asking me.
8 Likes
No but you are totally right. It would go straight to court.
5 Likes
The President must âtake care that the laws be faithfully executed.â This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause. This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.
The Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause to mean that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes. The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphreyâs Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the lawâs execution In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: âThe Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, âshall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,â Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the âCourts of Lawâ or by âthe Heads of Departmentsâ with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2.â
The President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or âcancelâ certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.
15 Likes
Thank you for that - thatâs awesome information.
Now i really hope he tries to end the CSR payments. Heâll clearly be in violation of the constitution and that should mean goodbye gone.
1 Like