ObamaCare in court
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.