Former federal prosecutor claims new case against Obamacare ‘a slam dunk’

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Dec 4, 2013.

  1. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,368
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +564
    From his mouth to God's ears... The interesting question is... would the democrats vote for this again... or would the SCOTUS vote for this again?

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/03/f...laims-new-case-against-obamacare-a-slam-dunk/

    A former federal prosecutor claimed Tuesday that a new case challenging Obamacare in federal court is “a slam dunk” for opponents of the law.

    Fred Tecce spoke to Fox News’ Jenna Lee about a lawsuit opening today in Washington, DC. Business owners are suing the government over one small clause in the law, arguing that the wording does not permit poor people in 36 states to obtain government-funded health care and would allow the IRS to saddle small businesses with massive penalties. (RELATED: Obamacare back in court Tuesday).

    Lee asked Tecce if the plaintiffs challenging the law had a case. “Do they have a case?” he answered incredulously. “I’m going to tell you something. Before, as Dr. Krauthammer said, this ‘lawlessness’ began, this case would be a slam dunk.”

    “It’s very simple,” he explained. “When you talk about interpreting a statute, Jenna, the words of the statute control. And the words of the statute define this exchange as set up by a state and they authorize subsidies for exchanges as defined by the statute. And — this is the irony of this — the law presumes that Congress knew what they were doing when they passed a statute. That’s the end of the conversation.”

    Teece also pushed back against the government’s — and his fellow panelist Doug Burns’ — argument that the issue is simply “a mistake” and that the court should interpret what Congress meant, not what they wrote.

    “When they wrote the section of the law that indicated who was going to get the subsidies, they specifically did not include the federal exchanges,” he said. “At the end of the day, even if it was a mistake — a typo, as my learned colleague is trying to say — it’s too bad, because mistakes are drawn against the drafters. . . If that’s what they meant, then that’s what they should have said.”

    “This is what happens when you ram a bill through with no back-and-forth, no bipartisan support,” he later added. “Ultimately, because of the mistakes that were made, the irony is that the real, the legitimate, the lawful fix for this would be to send the law back to Congress and tell them to fix it.”
  2. TJtheGator
    Offline

    TJtheGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,855
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Winter Springs, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +226
    Lets get this crap repealed for good!
  3. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,905
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,585
    It's hardly a "slam dunk," more like a hail mary.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115813/obamacares-final-legal-challenge-federal-court-washington

    If "intent" is considered, there seems very little grounds to hold to a throw away line that is contradicted by other parts of the law.

  4. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    was it really a mistake? The POtuS in the WH says one thing and does something else. The number of lies and deception is incredible.
  5. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,196
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,079
    the AG of Texas was discussing this am on CNBC. He sounded pretty confident.

    no worries, 0 will just change the law by executive order to match up with what he has the IRS doing. President is allowed to do that now you know. The president can change or enforce any law any way he sees fit. executive order...presidents have been doing it for centuries, just ask any 0 supporter.

    didn't get the dream act approved, no problem, we just will not enforce the law the way it is written but will use what would have been the law if it was passed. executive order...

    CO2 a health problem so carbon can be regulated...no problem...executive order or administrative determination coming at you...

    NLRB appointments a problem with the senate..no problem an executive order can't fix..till the court struck him down

    this is why Reid went nuclear on the DC Circuit nominations. 0 wants to stack the DC Circuit and have all executive orders challenged there...we win...executive order...

Share This Page