ShareThis Page

ObamaCare in court

| Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

Liberals twisted their brains in knots — contorting language, law and logic — trying to discredit the plaintiffs, if not American jurisprudence itself, in advance of today's oral arguments in King v. Burwell. That's the Supreme Court case that could lead to the demise of ObamaCare but, more tragically, if the administration prevails, a ringing endorsement of presidential imperialism.

The law, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, explicitly called for the creation of state health exchanges to administer the program; “through an exchange established by the state” is the exact language. But when three dozen states balked, the Obama administration freelanced the law (i.e., broke it while illegally expending money not appropriated by Congress) and created federal exchanges.

The New York Times led the liberal attack pack on King with downright Orwellian verbiage. In its view, abiding by the letter of the law is “a marvel of reverse-engineered legal absurdity” and “to put it mildly, baloney.” Just as bizarre, The Times blames the plaintiffs for “helping to create the very ‘crisis' they now decry” and claims that their absolutely contextual reading of the law is “bizarre” and “noncontextual.”

And we wash with the towel and we dry with the water.

The Obama administration and its “progressive” acolytes have only themselves to blame for the legal morass in which ObamaCare is mired. Here's to the Supreme Court affirming that with a legal exclamation point.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me