A political science professor, of course, declared in The Guardian, of course, that the D.C. court, who ruled the Obamacare subsidies for those on the Federal exchange were illegal, were engaging in “judicial activism” because they followed the letter of the law. In contrast, political science professor Scott Lemieux praises the 4th Circuit Court for ignoring the letter of the law and embracing an obviously acceptable extra-legal tweak that was necessary due to those evil Republicans. Because typo or “speak-o” or something.
Fun on Twitter resulted.
.@LemieuxLGM Following the law as written is not judicial activism. #Obamacare
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM #Obamacare is not an enabling act. Exec. & Judges not free to do whatever they want because it suits some vague "purpose"
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM The "purpose" of having subsidies for states that set up their own exchanges was to offer carrot for states to set them up.
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM The ones who are"subverting"the clear intention of the law are the ones supporting subsidies in states w/out their own exchange
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
Apparently believing that what the law is is what the law is is “idiotic”:
@ThePoliticalHat Not a single state believed that reading of the statute is true, for the obvious reason that it's transparently idiotic.
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) July 22, 2014
No one would believe such an “transparently idiotic” things… save for Obamacare’s architect, repeatedly. Or even former Sen. Baucus.
Lemieux doubles down in order to not concede to reality, or otherwise have his delusions smashed.
@ThePoliticalHat The dissent, not the majority, understands how the law was written.
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) July 22, 2014
@ThePoliticalHat The ACA was not written by Republicans; it was written by people who wanted both the state and federal exchanges to work,
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) July 22, 2014
Lemieux then tries to dishonestly (or at least ignorantly) try to confuse the subject:
@ThePoliticalHat If Congress wanted to give every state a veto over the exchanges it wouldn't have permitted federal ones at all.
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) July 22, 2014
@ThePoliticalHat Precisely. The authors of the ACA knew states would opt out, and hence designed federal exchanges to replace them.
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) July 23, 2014
Face… meet palm.
.@LemieuxLGM That statement is so wrong on every level.
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM First, the state's "veto" nothing… they are encouraged to set up their own exchanges but can not be commanded to do so.
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM The Federal exchanges existed with the foreknowledge that they might end up being necessary. States opting out was foreknown.
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM Because of that distinction, it's clear that those on Fed exchange were not getting the subsidies that those on state ones were
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM I award you no points… http://t.co/ZbABgziFPP
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014
He kept on digging:
@ThePoliticalHat The subsidies were a necessary component, meant to apply to both, as is childishly obvious.
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) July 23, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM If it was meant to apply to both, then they wouldn't have explicitly stated that is applies to one group but not the other.
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 23, 2014
.@LemieuxLGM Childishly obvious? Even a child would know how mind-bogglingly wrong you are.
— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 23, 2014
And some people wonder why “social sciences” are treated as such a joke now-a-days.
