How is it possible that two federal appellate courts
can look at an unambiguous statute in a law and come to different conclusions? The answer is progressive judges will interpret
anything they want, even when the language is concise and declaratory. That’s what happened in two recent rulings on Obamacare.
The so-called Affordable Healthcare Act is highly
dependent on federal subsidies. Very few
can afford health insurance without it. The
language is self-evident. Only state-run
exchanges are eligible for federal subsidies. There were no ands, ifs or buts in the
statute. But according to liberal
judges, we must have some kind of Vulcan mind meld to know the intent of
Congress.
We all knew the intent of that Congress. It was to
deceive and cajole the American people while shoving this excrement sandwich
down our collective throats. After all,
it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is
in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Yeah, we know what their intent was.
Once again, Obamacare is destined for the Supreme
Court. After the Roberts fiasco, I’m not
so sure we can count on a slam dunk. It’s obvious the Obama administration is
violating the law.
Let’s assume the Supreme Court does its duty and
rules that only state-run exchanges are eligible for federal subsidies, we know
that will not be the end of it. Liberals
never give up. I am willing to bet
another lawsuit will wind its way to a pliable federal court and this time progressives
will use their favorite weapon, the old dependable 14th Amendment.
The argument will be made that citizens are being
denied equal protection under the law.
They are paying taxes without reciprocity while the rest of the country
is enjoying the fruits of their labor; that without federal subsidies, they are
being denied access to healthcare. We
will witness the Sandra Fluke defense.
Doubt me?
Just wait and see.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment