{"id":32004,"date":"2015-07-02T17:41:54","date_gmt":"2015-07-02T21:41:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=32004"},"modified":"2015-07-02T17:42:04","modified_gmt":"2015-07-02T21:42:04","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-friday-june-26th-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=32004","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Friday, June 26th, 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, June 26th, 2015…and here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, it’s the “Now HERE’S<\/span> Something You CAN<\/span> Blame on Bush<\/em>!” segment, and all you need to know about the perils of electing Jeb President:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Political John Roberts<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

The Chief Justice again rewrites ObamaCare in order to save it<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"P071905-841.JPG\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…Chief Justice Roberts has now become a co-conspirator in this executive law-making. With the verve of a legislator, he has effectively amended the statute to read \u201cestablished by the State\u2014or by the way the Federal Government.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> His opinion\u2014joined by the four liberal Justices and Anthony Kennedy\u2014is all the more startling because it goes beyond normal deference to regulators.<\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts concedes that the challengers\u2019 arguments \u201cabout the plain meaning\u201d of the law \u201care strong.\u201d <\/span>But then he writes that Congress in its 2010 haste bypassed \u201cthe traditional legislative process<\/span>\u201d and thus \u201cthe Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/strong> So because ObamaCare is a bad<\/span> law, the Court must interpret it differently from other laws<\/span>.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

More to the political point, the Chief argues that withdrawing the subsidies would undermine larger ObamaCare goals such as giving \u201ccertain people tax credits to make insurance more affordable\u201d and could lead to bad policy consequences like higher costs. \u201cIt is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner<\/em><\/span>,\u201d he writes<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

\"BN-JC570_edp062_J_20150625190303\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“No, seriously; nobody could have meant<\/span> to draft legislation this poorly written!”<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Then again, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy, though in a moment of uncharacteristic weakness after Liberals invented “Borking”.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Best of the Web<\/i> wonders, in light of what’s now become…<\/b><\/p>\n

\u2018<\/span>SCOTUScare\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

Just what is<\/em> the justices\u2019 job<\/span>?<\/span><\/a><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"original\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…The majority acknowledges that the ObamaCare is a bit of a mess, or, as Roberts understatedly puts it, that it \u201ccontains more than a few examples of inartful drafting\u201d<\/strong><\/span>:<\/p>\n

“<\/span>Several<\/em> features of the Act\u2019s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through \u201cthe traditional legislative process.\u201d And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as \u201creconciliation,\u201d which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate\u2019s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.<\/em><\/strong>“<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Scalia\u2019s answer:<\/p>\n

“It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. .\u00a0.\u00a0. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly<\/span>. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care<\/span>, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.<\/em><\/strong><\/span>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Joel Gehrke notes over at NRO<\/em>, Scalia held nothing<\/span><\/em> back in his ardent dissent:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Scalia Slams Roberts as Biased In Obamacare Cases<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Obama-Son-Roberts-SC\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (\u2018penalty\u2019 means tax, \u2018further [Medicaid] payments to the State\u2019 means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, \u2018established by the State\u2019 means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence,\u201d Scalia wrote in his dissent. \u201cAnd the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n

Liberalism is a disease; Roberts is simply one of the symptoms.<\/strong><\/p>\n

All we can say is, enjoy your new friends, John:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"CJ-John-Roberts-Bong\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Oh,…and though we’d like<\/em><\/span> to express the hope Roberts burns in Hell, wishing this power-mad popinjay roasts in the everlasting and unquenchable fires of the nether regions is<\/em><\/span>\u00a0perhaps a\u00a0mite<\/em><\/span>\u00a0uncharitable. \u00a0So we’ll settle for having…<\/strong><\/p>\n