Who thinks people should benefit from illegal acts?
The most frequent argument I hear for the legalization of DREAMers is that since their parents brought them here they broke the immigration laws through no fault of their own. They are law abiding residents who came to this country as children and deserve to be granted rights not granted to other illegal immigrants. If you’ve seen the video of the confrontation between a couple of | Read More »
Questions of intent for Greg Sargent, Josh Marshall, Dylan Scott, et al.
I’ve searched the internet (and Twitter, in particular) for a reasoned argument against the Halbig decision. I keep seeing one word: intent. I’d argue that intent isn’t important in this case because the wording in the law is clear: subsidies only apply to “exchanges established by the State.” Left-leaning pundits seem to believe words in the law shouldn’t mean what they say and courts should uphold extralegal actions | Read More »
A simple question to Obamacare backers regarding Halbig
Without going too deeply into the Halbig decision, the basic premise that is being argued by conservatives is that the law means what it says. The law unambiguously dictates that subsidies are available only to State exchanges created under section 1311 (Federal exchanges were created under section 1321). As such, policies secured through the Federal exchange shouldn’t get subsidies. This presents a particular problem for | Read More »