This week the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in the case ofSissel v. Department of Health and Human Services, yet another of the innumerable legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act that conservatives will be filing forever and ever, world without end, amen. The country could be conquered by a race of super-intelligent Chihuahuas from a desert planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and all conservatives will want is for the inter-galactic Taco Bell mascots to clone Antonin Scalia eight times and put all the clones on the court so Obamacare can be overturned. Oh, and to allow them to keep all their guns.
Well, now, I don't know about that. I generally wear a bow tie with my dinner jacket when our community chorus is performing, and back when I was a much smaller bobbert and had a general manager who insisted that all engineers must wear ties, I found the bow tie a useful break from the Goodwill floral items I usually wore.
<i>&ldquo;All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.&rdquo;</i>
Okay. Fair enough. Now, let&#039;s start bitching about how many wars we have had in the last half century which were not authorized by Congress.
Yes, because the D.C. Circuit Court is going to suddenly declare &quot;shell bills&quot; unconstitutional (the ACA began life as the &quot;Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009&quot; in the House), thus disrupting what little function Congress has left.
Are we sure that the bow tie isn&#039;t cutting off the flow of oxygen to Will&#039;s brain?
<blockquote>The wingnuts complained that this was &ldquo;court-packing.&rdquo;</blockquote>
Thus adding to the already overwhelming burden of evidence that most complaints from the right-wing are pure projection, since the reality is that their main concern is that filling longstanding vacancies on the court with Obama appointees would help reverse <em>their</em> long-term court-packing plan.
Indeed. The Act&#039;s designation as H.R. 3590 says &quot;Shut up Will, you gormless idiot&quot;.
Besides, before the Senate vote on PPACA, the House had already passed H.R. 3962 with very similar mandate provisions albeit with a slightly different formula. So there&#039;s neither a technical nor an on-principle case that the Origination Clause was violated. That, of course, hasn&#039;t stopped the conservative ideologues on the DC Circuit in the past.
Note that the Origination Clause doesn&#039;t even say &quot;tax&quot;, so the distinction really doesn&#039;t have any bearing on the argument. The fact that the ACA was a shell bill (thus meaning on a technicality that it <em>did</em> originate in the House - the Clause says &quot;Bills for raising revenue&quot;, not &quot;provisions for raising revenue&quot;) does have a bearing on the argument, in that it ends it decisively in favor of constitutionality. (Plus on principle, an individual mandate backed by a provision that would result in revenue being sent Treasury&#039;s way was passed in the House before the Senate voted on it).
<blockquote>The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. </blockquote> George doesn&#039;t really like representative democracy very much, does he? He should write a column calling for Obama to resign and appoint a king. A suitable candidate would be a man from Illinois (no, not <i>that</i> one, he&#039;s dead) with a compliant Asian wife and a center-right position acceptable to Fred Hiatt.
Also too, the &quot;Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009&quot; was a revenue bill (while sections 1-4 reduced revenue, sections 5 &amp; 6 increased it). There&#039;s no case here at all, just a conservative fapfest, which means it still stands a chance because a bunch of judges don&#039;t give a flying fuck about the law.
His resources are so limited he&#039;s going to litigate this all the way to the Supreme Court. Yeah, uh-huh. Makes sense!
This is why we plan to replace him with Garry Wills.
Well, now, I don&#039;t know about that. I generally wear a bow tie with my dinner jacket when our community chorus is performing, and back when I was a much smaller bobbert and had a general manager who insisted that all engineers must wear ties, I found the bow tie a useful break from the Goodwill floral items I usually wore.
fudge packing
Were you there?
I think it&#039;s just an old photo, not shooped. He really did look like that once.
To be fair, mostly they refuse to issue you a driver license, and/or vehicle registration.
Then, if you still drive, they fine/jail you.
Oh, for the love of fuck. All he needs is a bow tie.
<i>&ldquo;All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.&rdquo;</i>
Okay. Fair enough. Now, let&#039;s start bitching about how many wars we have had in the last half century which were not authorized by Congress.
Yes, because the D.C. Circuit Court is going to suddenly declare &quot;shell bills&quot; unconstitutional (the ACA began life as the &quot;Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009&quot; in the House), thus disrupting what little function Congress has left.
Are we sure that the bow tie isn&#039;t cutting off the flow of oxygen to Will&#039;s brain?
<blockquote>The wingnuts complained that this was &ldquo;court-packing.&rdquo;</blockquote>
Thus adding to the already overwhelming burden of evidence that most complaints from the right-wing are pure projection, since the reality is that their main concern is that filling longstanding vacancies on the court with Obama appointees would help reverse <em>their</em> long-term court-packing plan.
I think you missed an &quot;again&quot; there at the end.
Indeed. The Act&#039;s designation as H.R. 3590 says &quot;Shut up Will, you gormless idiot&quot;.
Besides, before the Senate vote on PPACA, the House had already passed H.R. 3962 with very similar mandate provisions albeit with a slightly different formula. So there&#039;s neither a technical nor an on-principle case that the Origination Clause was violated. That, of course, hasn&#039;t stopped the conservative ideologues on the DC Circuit in the past.
Note that the Origination Clause doesn&#039;t even say &quot;tax&quot;, so the distinction really doesn&#039;t have any bearing on the argument. The fact that the ACA was a shell bill (thus meaning on a technicality that it <em>did</em> originate in the House - the Clause says &quot;Bills for raising revenue&quot;, not &quot;provisions for raising revenue&quot;) does have a bearing on the argument, in that it ends it decisively in favor of constitutionality. (Plus on principle, an individual mandate backed by a provision that would result in revenue being sent Treasury&#039;s way was passed in the House before the Senate voted on it).
<blockquote>The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. </blockquote> George doesn&#039;t really like representative democracy very much, does he? He should write a column calling for Obama to resign and appoint a king. A suitable candidate would be a man from Illinois (no, not <i>that</i> one, he&#039;s dead) with a compliant Asian wife and a center-right position acceptable to Fred Hiatt.
Also too, the &quot;Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009&quot; was a revenue bill (while sections 1-4 reduced revenue, sections 5 &amp; 6 increased it). There&#039;s no case here at all, just a conservative fapfest, which means it still stands a chance because a bunch of judges don&#039;t give a flying fuck about the law.