Ironic for an Obama appointee…
I’ll wager that Trump and the GOP was hoping the judge would make the payments resume.
That 2018 election implosion you hear? That’d be your friendly neighborhood GOP…
Really? I’d like to know more about how that came about…This sucks.
Next year’s election will bring bigger majorities for the Trumpers. Everything I have seen shows that Republicans are quite happy with little Donnie’s performance as President. Nothing I have seen makes me believe that increased numbers of Democrats will take the trouble to vote next year, nor that Republican voters will choose to vote for Democratic candidates. Our “democracy” is history now.
Exactly, they would be able to take the coward’s way out and also blame the Obama judge. I’m glad he didn’t bail them out.
Can we get you a bucket of water to douse your hair?
Let the lawsuits commence.
Obama went the long and painful route of making his legislation law, with all the warts and freckles.
Captain EO Trounce doesn’t get that law part and why would he, he is incapable of passing any.
might have missed this…
“Chhabria, an Obama appointee, said at a hearing Monday that California and other states had protected consumers from the loss of the funding so people didn’t face an immediate threat of higher insurance costs.”
Fucking hell. STOP FIXING THE MESSES THEY MAKE!!! STOP BEING THE “SAVIOR” AND PICKING UP THE PIECES WHEN THE GOP FUCKS EVERYTHING UP!!! This ruling came down this way because the injunction analysis requires the judge to weigh whether the harm the moving party would suffer if the injunction IS NOT granted outweighs (or is outweighed by) the harm that the non-moving party would suffer if the injunction IS granted.
CA went about protecting everyone from the fallout of deliberate, intentional, avaricious GOP mis-governance, so the judge sided with the non-moving party…the harm of granting the injunction would hurt the federal gov’t more since CA was preventing the harm to its citizens. NOW NOBODY LEARNS THAT THERE WERE ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES TO WHAT THE GOP DID…NOBODY HAS TO EXPERIENCE THEM AND THE GOP GETS OFF SCOTT-FREE. This is why we can’t have nice things: because no matter how fucking bad the GOP behaves, no matter how evil, no matter how despicable and disgusting their behavior, there is never any real consequence from which the direct causal relationship can be undeniably drawn.
Yippeeeee? What’s their talking point…they’ve taken over something like 1,000 state and local positions from Dems since 2008 when the election of President Darky “woke” every white nationalist fuck in the country from their complacent white privilege naps? Hurray…we moved the needle by 0.6%. Pathetic.
Meanwhile, the GOP/RNC is out-fundraising the Dems/DNC by more than a 2 to 1 ratio while our effete douchebags in Congress fail to message in anything resembling an effective manner, instead dutifully following behind the GOP with an inverted sammich bag over each fist, picking up their shit so nobody ever actually has to smell it or step in it and thereby learn for real that the GOP is a bunch of dangerous, self-serving full-o-shit turd faucets.
So fuck all those people who would get hurt?
Just for a Win? Sounds like Trump to me.
Depressing. Similar to the rich-person reasoning that poor people should never get financial help if they’re not absolutely STARVING. . . . . . . If they can manage to scrape by week-to-week (without med care of course), then they’re JUST FINE! LooK! A refrigerator! The nerve of some people wanting to put FOOD in their refrigerator!
For a win? No. Where did I use the word win? Where did I say or even imply that it had anything to do with “winning” partisan politics? Where did I even say I LIKE my conclusion? If people/society can’t, won’t or don’t learn shit the easy way, there’s no other choice but for them to learn the hard way. This is about reality. PRACTICAL REALITY.
The Dems try to “make it work”, because they actually want to govern, but it comes off as either “giving in” and/or making the GOP look to be correct. We dont need more Dems, we need better ones. Dems are afraid of peopke not liking them, so they veer toward GOP lite which the GOP voter will never vote for anyway and the Dem voter doesnt see thst much difference and doesn’t turn out.
It’s important to note that this outcome was driven in large part by the procedural posture of the case. The states were asking for immediate emergency relief, and the judge was basically saying - reasonably, too, under the legal standard for these types of injunctions - “where’s your emergency? You’ve got a solid plan for going without the subsidies in 2018 with minimum harm and potential upside - why can’t you wait until I decide this case on a normal schedule?”
He also clearly wants more time to ponder the underlying legal issue, which is not an easy one. (I mean as a matter of pure law; of course when it comes to policy and motives, the decision to cut off the subsidies was absolutely indefensible, and clearly had nothing to do with concerns about violating the Constitution. But that unfortunately doesn’t affect the legal question.)
Yes, there’s a sad no-good-deed-goes-unpunished irony in the fact that if CA et al. had done nothing, they might have been in a better position to show that they needed emergency relief. While of course the states that are really hurting by and large did not join this lawsuit.
I wonder how much the Koch Brothers paid in bribes to that judge…
I have no idea what the RNC or DNC are doing but the Dem Congressional candidates are out raising the GOP candidates at the moment. So, you are being fairly selective.
Also, if your expectation is everything that has been done over a course of a decade will be undone in one fell swoop than you will be very very sad for quite a while. These things are all incremental.
If the Dems when back governorships and make headways in state Houses that is big. It will take several cycles to do anything about that though at best. The Dems could win the House back in 2018 but we need to see how things go before then.
That probably still would not be enough for you but it would effectively kill most of Trump’s agenda. The downside would be that unless the Senate gets alot closer than the judiciary will probably be made up of conservative looney’s for a generation.
I merely pointed hoppy in a direction that countered his comment
do I believe there will be a major swing in the relative compositions of legislatures? not necessarily, voter suppression efforts, apathy, etc. are factors to consider, but ignoring midterm election trends where the party of the president typically loses seats, the unpopularity of tRUmp/repube congress, straight up agitation of the voting populace… can’t ignore these either
who knows what will come up in the next 12 months to influence election outcomes (I can see issues with unemployment/stalling economy, wicked health insurance premium increases - I don’t understand how group premiums won’t be impacted by increases in the uninsured rates in the individual markets, pre-ACA my group premiums skyrocketed yearly without corresponding benefit increases, wars…), I certainly have had a really bad 2+ years predicting what would happen based on my clearly warped understanding of the world