King v. Burwell and the Democratic Abyss.

This is a somewhat interesting article on CNN about the perils for Democrats if the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell: not least because it’s fairly clear that the author would rather that there not be any perils for Democrats at all.  Nonetheless, the article does concede that the original mad optimism that Democrats showed in thinking that the elimination of federal Obamacare subsidies would backfire on Republicans was mad optimism, and maybe not particularly justified mad optimism as that.  But there’s an even worse potential problem for Democrats: what’s their Plan B?

Because the Republicans have a bunch of Plan Bs.  Senator Bill Cassidy of [Louisiana] wants to set up an alternative Health Savings Account (HSA) program. Representative Tom Price of Georgia wants to try tax credits and pooling coverage.  And there’s even Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin’s exquisite poison pill of a bill where Congress puts back the subsidies… in exchange for a repeal of the individual and employee mandates.  All of these plans can’t be implemented at the same time, of course.  There’s no way that they could be.  But they are, in fact, plans: and should King v. Burwell be decided against the government I expect that we’ll see a Republican consensus hammered together over a long weekend.

In contrast… the Obama administration has more or less responded to every inquiry as to what they plan to do if federal subsidies go away with an airy That’s not going to happen.  And, indeed, it might not happen: predicting US Supreme Court decisions is a mug’s game.  The problem here for the Democrats is that the Obama administration has a remarkably consistent record of being mugs. Even their greatest victory – the constitutionality of the individual mandate – was decided on something besides Commerce Clause expansion (which is what the administration used as its justification). If I was still a Democrat, I would not feel comfortable about my side’s lacking a contingency plan right now.

So what’s the Democrats’ Plan B? …Besides screaming about Republicans, of course.  And how has that been working out for people not named ‘Barack Obama,’ again?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Simply sponsoring a law that would simply replace the federal subsidies will not fly, that Politico article above to the contrary. The Democrats can’t just ram things through Congress without amendments anymore; we can just rewrite the blessed thing to our own desires and dare Obama to veto the result.  It’s going to be interesting to see whether the Democrats in Congress have really realized that yet…

33 thoughts on “King v. Burwell and the Democratic Abyss.”

  2. The Obama adminstration has John Roberts in it’s pocket, so I don’t think they are lying when speaking about the possibility of SCOTUS ruling against the gov’t: “That’s not going to happen”.

    1. I .. really don’t think so.
      .
      The “three dimensional chess” argument has .. grown on me.
      .
      Mew

          1. Really?
            .
            Are you including every case, or just the Roberts “it’s a tax” decision?
            .
            Are you aware of just how damaging to Proggies the “it’s a tax” decision is?
            .
            Mew

          2. Acat, some of us have a very strong suspicion that Chief Justice Roberts is being blackmailed. The way in which he adopted his children was … irregular.

          3. Got cite?
            .
            Sure, he may be being blackmailed, *anything* is possible, but .. the findings of the Roberts court *other than* in the “it’s a tax” case have consistently gone against the Obama administration.
            .
            IF he’s being blackmailed, then .. they’re very narrowly focused blackmailers with very limited legal skills.
            .
            Mew

          5. Wait .. you mean Mr. Conservative is *serious*? I thought it was like The Onion …
            .
            There’s no *there* there .. it’s just bloviation and conjecture, all based on an *emotional* dislike of the “it’s a tax” decision.
            .
            Mew
            .
            .
            .
            p.s. I’m surprised the article didn’t propose that the children are from Argentina and have a particular genetic background …

          6. That was the first of quite a few Google hits I got from (IIRC) Chief Justice Roberts adoption … Even Wikipedia alludes to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination#Adoption_records
             

            Let me put it this way: The circumstances of John Roberts’ adoption of his two children are sufficiently murky as to not dispel suspicions that he can be blackmailed.
             
            But perhaps I’m not giving the Obama administration enough credit for integrity. Mr. Obama and his minions would never stoop so low as abuse someone’s privacy for sordid political purposes … Just ask Jack Ryan!

  3. PS: Simply sponsoring a law that would simply replace the federal subsidies will not fly, that Politico article above to the contrary. The Democrats can’t just ram things through Congress without amendments anymore; we can just rewrite the blessed thing to our own desires and dare Obama to veto the result.

    It depends on how you define “we”.

    The way the DIABLO leadership has acted, working with all the Democrats and a few DIABLO’s to pass what the Democrats want; Senator Johnson’s plan to extend Obamacare and the subsidies until after the election will be the only part of his plan that gets through. In effect stalling until either Hillary or Bush win the presidency [neither would kill Obamacare] and after the DIABLO’s lose at least the Senate [because of the way that they have betrayed the base consistently since winning the Senate] there will be no chance to ever get rid of it. Thanks to the DIABLO leadership.

    1. Eh, I would like to think even the gutless turd D.C. wing of the GOP would recognize they probably don’t want to keep pushing something that the Roberts court keeps using to undermine their power …
      .
      Still, they are both politicians and gutless turds, so .. it may be around for a bit longer.
      .
      Mew

    3. There is a flaw in your logic.
      .
      For the Republicans to lose the Senate, the so-called base will either have to vote against Republican senators or stay home at such a rate that Republican senators cannot overcome their Democratic challengers. In either case, it would be the so-called base, not the Republicans in the Senate, that would be responsible for that defeat. (Which, no doubt, is a claim you would make in the aftermath as a way of showing your importance to the political process. And yet you undermine said claim here. Interesting.)
      .
      To say that X is responsible for the way you cast your vote (or choose not to) is to surrender responsibility for your own actions to X. That is the antithesis of what the conservative movement is all about.
      .
      Finally, as this is not my site, I will refrain from giving my opinion on the critical-thinking abilities of people who substitute insulting labels for actual names. I like Moe, I respect his work, and I don’t want to be booted out of here. (But it’s not a favorable opinion, I’ll say that much.)

    4. Almost forgot:
      .
      Of course, extending the application of my counterpoint to your original argument, the logical conclusion is that you and yours would then be responsible for Republicans lacking the votes to rid America of Obamacare, which is legislation I’m sure you despise. But hey, if that cost seems acceptable to you, you should pursue it.

      1. There is nothing to indicate that the Republican Party intends to use its majority status to do anything but enable Democrats. That includes not being willing to do anything to get rid of Obamacare. If both parties want something, and one is willing to go against the will of their voters after spending their last campaign making it about fighting Obama tooth and nail; it makes no sense for the voters to support them in the next election because a difference that makes no difference, is no difference.

        1. I have no confidence in the Republican party following its own nomination rules, at least not here in Colorado, and from what I hear elsewhere.

          We just elected “Bait and Switch” Cory Gardner as Senator to replace Mark “Uterus” Udall. It was not an improvement, it turns out; however the key is how he got the nomination.

          Our system is precinct caucuses, to choose delegates to the County Assembly. The County Assembly chooses delegates from amongst its own delegates for all higher conventions, including to State Convention where the candidates for statewide offices are voted on to go on the primary ballot.

          Early in the process, there were 7 people who had filed nominating petitions to run for Senate. None of them were Congressman Cory Gardner. My TEA Party group hosted a multi-county candidate forum for them before the precinct caucuses so those who were going to attend caucus could take the candidates’ measure before deciding whether to try to go for higher delegate slots.

          We had 6 of the 7 at our forum. Several good possibilities, some duds.

          Between our forum, and the precinct caucuses that actually start the nominating process with delegate selection, the State Republican Central Committee called all those running and Cory Gardner to Denver. The candidates were told that a) Cory Gardner was going to be the nominee, and b) any of the candidates that did not drop out would never get any support from the Republican party for anything ever again.

          By the time of the caucuses that actually begin the process, the only choice the party rank and file had for the eventual primary was Cory “Bait and Switch” [which also describes his voting record since January] Gardner.

          I have very little trust in the Republican primary process. YMMV

          1. I presume, then, that your Tea Party group have started a ballot initiative to change the process?
            .
            Mew

          4. The People control it .. if they’ve got the mother-wit to organize and take control ..
            .
            .. and if they don’t, then, what you have is a minority position, and welcome to the club, sucks to be you.
            .
            (hint: Cat is from Chicago, your corruption pales)
            .
            Seriously, if y’all cannot persuade a majority of CO-GOP types that CO-GOP needs a change, you’re not going to get candidates you want… and you’d be better focusing your time on horticulture.
            .
            Mew

  5. acat
    June 3, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    If the Republican Party would follow the law and its own party rules, there would be no problem. It is not a matter of changing the law. It is a matter of laws and party rules being optional at the whim of those in power. . . . for the moment in power.

    1. Wish in one paw, spit in the other, see which gets full faster, as grandmother cat used to say.
      .
      Seriously, the only way politicians follow the rules is if someone stands behind them with a pointy stick and pokes ’em if they step out of line. That’s the reality, what you want is wish-think. Get used to it.
      .
      Mew

      1. The only effective pointy stick [short of kinetic means] involves them not being in office. Assuming elections in 2016, I think that they may be in that position in January 2017. We can’t do anything about Democrats. If nothing else, you have to defeat Republicans to get at Democrats. In the main, Republicans are an electoral free fire zone.

        1. If you are seriously interested in change, then you’re thinking way too far down the line.
          .
          You have to figure out how to persuade others to see things your way first .. and sounding like a conspiracy theorist does not help.
          .
          I wish you luck in this ..
          .
          Mew

Comments are closed.