Waitâpolitical disagreement is now proof of illegality? I did not know that Trump-law had already started.
Republicans are now asserting that Fisherâs testimony proves there was enough uncertainty over paying for the subsidies to show that the Obama administration is in fact acting illegally.Exactly. Any expressed uncertainty by anybody over whether something is legal, immediately means it's illegal.
Itâs just basic logic. Which, as everybody knows, is a particular strong point of the GOP (little known fact: the âPâ actually stands for âPretzelâ).
Itâs eventually going to come out that the Affordable Care Act was intended to disrupt the very fabric of space and time, thus destroying us all.
Darn that pesky Obama!
Are they still on about this? They are like my Miniature Pinscher, Huxley. He once saw a large desert spiny lizard hidining in a large crack in our garden wall. Itâs been several years and the lizard has never reappeared and is likely long dead. But Huxley spends a large portion of the day and evening , staring, barking and whining into the empty crack.
This explains why, after people questioned whether torture was legal, having a secret white house counsel opinion saying it was OK meant that torture was in fact legal. Oh, wait. I guess the rules work the opposite way if a republican is in the white house.
I thought the GOP didnât trust the IRS? I guess only when itâs convenient.
Itâs just a warm-up, because you wouldnât want to go full TeaRump law cold, right?
Thanks a lot, Obama.
Holy crapâŚdo these jackholes EVER do anything for the country? Or do t hey just whine and snivel and sue?
pics pls, sounds like an adorable puppy!
NEWS FLASH: A retired employee registered to the questioning Party confirmed that there was a secret meeting in an undisclosed location, with information he couldnât study nor remember, but did have a very uncomfortable feeling about, who has said under oath that he didnât like it. The US Congress is therefore suspending the Constitution and declaring Martial Law.
This is such a silly case. I would of thought the lower federal courts would of given up on this after prior legal arguments to kill or severely damage the ACA failed at the supreme court (with the last 6â3 ruling in my mind almost sending a signal of enough already).
The way I understand how this provision of the ACA works (based of some legal articles on the subject that came out when the case was first filed) is that regardless of a federal appropriation, the insurance companies are REQUIRED to lower cost-sharing for all âsilverâ level exchange plans for anybody purchasing on the exchange with an income below a certian threshold (I want to say 200% of federal poverty level or maybe 250%) and then the Insurance companies are ENTITLED to a federal payment compenstating them for the cost sharing reductions (the language saying something like health plans âshall recieveâ). So even if we believed the GOP house and this Bush appointed judges theory of the case that the payment should be appropriated annually (and assuming that the conservative House refuses to grant this appropriation as we all should), then the insurance companies can seek relief in federal courts where their payment would be required, yes this would be burdensome, ridiculous and a total waste of valuable court time, but not a death blow to the lawâŚAnd from my understanding, in situations in the past with similar circumstances, the Supreme Court ultimatley determines this is rediculous and thereâs no need to clog up the courts with claims of required payments owed by the government but which wasnât technically appropriated (but nonetheless the health plans are still legallyentitled). Iâm gonna refind these legal articles,
Officials disagree all the time. The man quoted was free to express his opinion, but from the story I gather that he had no special expertise, nor a position that gave him the authority to decide the administrationâs position. So his opinion is his opinion, nothing more.