This is going to get interesting.
Maybe the repubs will stall until their SCOTUS pick is on board. Then they won"t care about DC Appeals at all.
I devoutly hope itâs less than four years. Four years is a long time.
And the extreme indignation and claims of legislating from the bench from the Republicans who have been using this tactic for 8 years begin in 3 ⌠2 âŚ
Nicely done Tierney Sneed. A real challenge no doubt in making this lawsuit âexplainableâ.
Republicans in the lawsuit object to the administrationâs use of the Treasury to fund payments to insurers that hadnât been appropriated by Congress.
I remember(?) this when the ACA was running out of money right after initial roll out/ implementation. Obama administration was surprised at the statesâ resistance to use the state ACA plan and went to the Treasury for mo money to help set up about 25-30 states under the Federal plan - or something like that.
The Republicans left so many judgeships open during the Obama administration, wouldnât confirm many so there are a lot to fill, so look for them to quickly fill every last one of them with right wing nut jobs.
Yep. Never mind the progressive agenda; itâs been a rough eight years and counting for people who value adult behavior, like playing by the damn rules, or the principles of self-government that suggest the people governed should have some say in the matter. Great time for tantrum-throwing babies, though. Fortuneâs wheel, I guess.
Yep, problem is, so many are getting caught up in the daily horror show that seeing the big picture gets clouded. Need to stop getting emotional about all this shit and get rational and mean.
I strive hard to be both and will redouble my efforts. : )
Sounds like the last eight years of GOP obstructionism has been a great leaning tool for everyone concerned. Time to turn the tables on them.
Just a thought - referring to the resistance to the Trump agenda as âthe leftâ is probably not a support-winner for the next four years. America doesnât really have a meaningful âleftâ - in global terms, real left-wingers donât believe in money, and thatâs the association which is forced on centrist Americans by the Right. It might be better to emphasise the extremism of the Right by referring to their opponents just as America. Itâs America vs. the Right for the next four years.
"But to simply have a backroom deal that is going to cut out the important benefits for the people who depend on them is not the way that it should be done.â
Well, that IS the way of Trump. Get ready folks. Heâs going to be back door man for all of usâŚforget the lube.
Yes to this. And, actually, the Democratic party is currently centrist, not leftwing.
Backlash is the only game in town. When people start dying under Trumpâs âgovernmentâ âŚ
LibTards sue haPPy. Torte REForm!!!1!1!!one!!!1!!!
Wouldnât the decision to remove healthcare for many Americans because of affordability be state sanctioned death sentences?
Thatâs an interesting point in part because the traditional understanding of what a conservative believes doesnât really apply and hasnât for long time. If they consistently believe in and hold to anything besides using a nihilistic witchâs brew of plutocracy, theocracy, and populism to take and hold power, I donât know what it would be.
This will, of course, be one of the new Breitbot slogans. Their landslide mandate makes it unamerican to sabotage the will of the people with malicious lawsuits brought before unelected judges. Always grateful to the mighty Ghost for the heads-up. We saw it here first.
âIs This Court Filing The First Shot In Four Years Of Legal Battles Against Trump?â
If it is, itâs not a very good one. The answer is that when parties work their differences out or one side gives up, they can stipulate to dismissal of the case. The court wonât interfere with that. The court doesnât have to make a ruling on the substance of the dispute, so their argument about that made little sense to me, but maybe Iâm missing something about the procedural posture of the case. Moreover, while Iâm not up on my âdefinition of aggrievedâ or standing law, I have trouble imagining itâs not at least an iffy proposition that these people have standing based on hypothetical anticipated behavior that will lead to hypothetical damage.