3763

He’ll be in repose like Lenin in one of his hotels.

3764

When they carve his likeness into Stone Mountain Armando can at least piss on that.

3765

Once the contractors get stiffed, I imagine the security will be rather lax.

3766

Krugman takes a swing:

3767

They’re gonna add low-cost plans subject to preexisting conditions, that’s the trick. Sure, they won’t cover anything serious but you won’t find out till it’s too late anyway.

3768

Exactly this. This also provides plenty of people whose rates went down, and they’re happy about how Trump saved them money. Fox simply won’t interview those who go bankrupt.

3769

He is going to try, and he is going to fail. This lawsuit is going nowhere, regardless of what Trump does.

3770

Yo… That same executive, Philip Esforme with the alleged billion dollar fraud also paid to get his son, Morris Esforme, into Penn/Wharton.

(darn why is Trump so big in that quote)

3771

Why do you believe this? I’m afraid the DOJ’s failure to defend it will have an impact.

3772

The tentpole element of the ACA has already been upheld as constitutional by 5-4 vote of the Supremes, all 5 still sit. The legal principles of the rest likely cannot be struck down as unconstitutional without causing some pretty vast collateral damage.

3773

And I could be criticized for putting too much faith in this, but each day more people sign up for ACA and are covered by it, and would therefore be harmed by its revocation. Therefore, each day there is an incrementally higher political cost to be paid for attempting to revoke ACA, and we saw the results of the last attempt during the last election cycle.

3774

Who is the 5th vote to overturn the constitutionality?

3775

The DoJ already failed to defend part of the ACA, now they won’t defend the rest.

No matter, the attorney generals of 20 states swept in to take up the defense, and now lawyers from the House have joined them. It is an easy task, since even critics of the ACA think this particular challenge is fundamentally inane.

3776

This is true, and it’s why McConnell wants nothing to do with it. But Trump doesn’t give a shit about any of these people, and he’s perfectly happy to toss a grenade over the wall.

3777

Hey if it’s worth anything, I just want to remind any remaining Trump/GOP voters that they want me to suffer, to the point that my best move would be to divorce my wife and disown my children.

That’s what you’re voting and fighting for.

Congrats.

3778

What is the particular point of law in question?*

*I mean, besides “we really don’t like it when the federal government spends money in a way that helps ordinary people,” of course.

3779

They got theirs, why the hell should they care about you?

3780

As you may recall, Roberts upheld the individual mandate as part of Congress’s taxation powers. Subsequently, the penalty for not having insurance was reduced to zero by Congress. Hence, it’s not much of a mandate.

Ok, so the plaintiffs argue that a zeroed out tax is no longer a tax. Hence Roberts’ justification for the mandate no longer applies. Hence the defunct mandate must be unconstitutional. But since Congress didn’t specify that the mandate is severable, then the entire ACA is unconstitutional.

The whole argument is stupid. Mainly because it requires assuming that Congress intends for the ACA to function only with an intact mandate (ie the mandate is inseverable). But that’s obviously false, because in 2017 Congress ended the mandate and preserved the rest of the ACA. Yet Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with the plaintiffs, basically ruling that Congress can’t change its mind. I can’t even

His ruling will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. Even ACA critics think it’s stupid.

3781

Wow, that legal “argument” is idiotic in the extreme. Those guys were probably dropped on their heads as babies a couple too many times.

3782

Or not enough. I really hope they experience the joy of having major medical issues come up and having insurance not cover it.