Posted on 02/10/2014 7:24:28 PM PST by SeekAndFind
They have a whole heap of regulations still left to write (at least $1.4 billion in annual compliance costs’ worth, by one estimate), but the employer mandate was part of the actual text of the law. Where is it written that they can just make at-will changes ad infinitum? Watch it at RCP:
Generally speaking, you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law, lawlessly. I mean, this is stuff that you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants and any provision. It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election, and it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do. … It’s not incompetence. Willful breaking of the constitutional order — where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter a law 27 times after it’s been passed?
And besides the utter lawlessness of the whole thing, there’s still the question of the tangible price of the White House’s non-legislative mood swings: After the Obama administration’s initial employer-mandate suspension through 2015 that they made back in July, the CBO estimated that it would add an additional $12 billion onto the total cost of ObamaCare because employers wouldn’t be paying penalties (i.e., taxes) on not insuring people, while more people would likely need to seek subsidized insurance through the exchanges because their employers wouldn’t be required to offer it yet. Won’t delaying the employer mandate again add at least ten billion or so more onto the total ObamaCare price tag? Especially if the Obama administration does decide to go through with the rumored (and, incidentally, also lawless) three-year extension of the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” fix for the cancelled plans in the individual market, doesn’t that all increase the likelihood of major “risk corridor” bailouts and/or the law’s fiscal implosion? What is going on?!
The good doctor is so quaint. He apparent still thinks we live as free sovereign citizens in a representational system of limited governance. Imagine that! He probably also has a nice horse and buggy at his manor.
_________________________________________________________________
Why Roberts did it
By Charles Krauthammer
June 28, 2012
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time.
He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
From Mitch and Tammy Faye the sound of crickets.
Then all I can say is the Constitution is dead... America is in a death spiral! In 10 years were going to look back and we’re going to be kicking ourselves because we never fought to remove those evil bastards from the White House. My Life is almost over but I sincerely fear so much for our children who will have to deal with the country we are leaving behind. And nobody gives a freaking rats butt anymore...:(
Graph graph!
Would you please put up a National Poverty Debt vs time graph for comparison?
Anyone know if a lawsuit can be filed against employers and/or insurance companies who obey Obama?
I guess I’m lucky that all of my “descendants” are liberals who love Obama. I don’t have to worry about the future they’ve made for themselves.
” - - - while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law - - - “
Yup, you nailed CK on this one.
Traitor John Roberts did NOT do what Krauthammer wrote.
Traitor John showed Obama that all yuh gotta do is re-write any Federal Law, and Traitor John will back up Obama, every time!
When Traitor John illegally rewrote Obamacare by crossing out the word “fine” and substituting the word “tax,” both men know that weak, cowardly, crybaby Speaker Boehner would to nothing to oppose the new Roberts-Obama “Law of the Land.”
Roberts and Obama were right and Krauthammer was wrong.
.... I think it has become high time that this guy gets his Whitehouse membership privileges permanently canceled!!!
I don't know what protects a country, but whatever does, is not happening here. No one is doing anything, so who will protect us, if he orders us into the camps? No one. Each person will be on their own.
There must be court challenges to some of these “fiat changes” to the law. What is their status?
What is going on, he asks?
Incompetence + irresponsibility + affirmative action + white liberal guilt + evil.
pressure our sorry House RINOs
An elephant you can tame, and teach,
There are no trained rinos.
Who and how can he be stopped?
“Overload the system” is even easier when everyone is afraid of being called a racist for going after obama.
He’s the perfect storm. I have to give credit to the genius who dreamt up this guy for president.
I thought John McCain said this was “SETTLED law”? If I were Cruz I would be in the well of the Senate every chance I could get and review all the changes and delays to this travesty. Cruz should close with the line:
“Senators, If this is the best Washington DC can do for the American people, we should all go home right now. THIS LAW IS A COMPLETE EMBARRASMENT.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.