By cutting off applications, the administration will avoid the bursts of attention each time it granted a new batch.
So it isn't about waivers for businesses that can't afford it, it's about politics. From now on, fuck you, small businesses... there's an election to win.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
They appear to be insinuating that having the option for waivers indicats your law is inherently flawed.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
The U.S. gov't agreed with the U.S. gov't? What a fucking shock. Checks and balances left the building long ago.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
"If the government can force me to buy your health care, can they also force me to pick your cotton?"
And essentially, they are already forcing you to pick their cotton buy forcing you to buy the health care, you're just paying for it with liquid currency instead of forced labor. You're compelled either way.
Edited By GORDON on 1313174487
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
No sir. Your side is ignoring the Constitution and its purpose when you make ignorant statements like that one.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Obama sought to channel the public's anger in order to avoid being sunk by it himself. He urged the public to tell Washington lawmakers they'd had enough with the bickering and stalemates. "You've got to tell them you've had enough of the theatrics, you've had enough of the politics, stop sending out press releases. Start passing some bills that we all know will help the economy right now," he said. "That's what they need to do. They've got to hear from you."
A full ten paragraphs beforehand in the same article...
Obama aired his frustration with the ways of Washington at an event in Michigan before pivoting to his re-election campaign and a pair of big-money fundraisers in New York City. He delivered a condensed version of that message at a fundraiser at the lower Manhattan home of movie producer Harvey Weinstein, where celebrities Gwyneth Paltrow and Jimmy Fallon, were among the approximately 50 guests who paid $35,800 each to attend.
Jimmy Fallon paid 35 grand to hang out with real celebrities?
Edited By Malcolm on 1313188066
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Regarding the dissent in the most recent Obamacare court challenge, am I the only one who read it as sarcasm, as tongue-in-cheek, as a rope-a-dope? The dissenter says the others
…ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy.
And they did ignore that, didn’t they? And that is an undeniable fact, isn’t it? But the judge, at least from the excerpts I’ve read, is coyly silent on what he thinks about that undeniable fact.
It’s almost as if this dissent was written, knowing it would be the minority, as a challenge to the higher courts who will (inevitably) rule on this issue to stop letting Congress grow their power exponentially. I mean who can seriously buy that a member of the Judicial Branch thinks it’s hunky-dory and fully Constitutional for Congress’s power to ‘grow exponentially’? The statement contains its own rebuke.
Of course, if that was indeed meant as a sincere judicial opinion in favor of a Congressional power – that it’s ok and fully Constitutional for Congress’s power to ‘grow exponentially’ as long as that okayness is ‘generally accepted’ and that the Constitution can thus be stretched to authorize Congress to ‘regulate large areas of our national economy’ – then it is a scandal and such a fascist and lickspittle judge would have no business being on the bench.