It’s like the Washington Post forgets about the period between 1/20/2009 and 1/19/2017
Trump administration won’t defend ACA in case brought by GOP states
The Trump administration said Thursday night that it will not defend the Affordable Care Act against the latest legal challenge to its constitutionality — a dramatic break from the executive branch’s tradition of arguing to uphold existing statutes and a land mine for health insurance changes the ACA brought about.
In a brief filed in a Texas federal court and an accompanying letter to the House and Senate leaders of both parties, the Justice Department agrees in large part with the 20 Republican-led states that brought the suit. They contend that the ACA provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance soon will no longer be constitutional and that, as a result, consumer insurance protections under the law will not be valid, either.
The three-page letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions begins by saying that Justice adopted its position “with the approval of the President of the United States.†The letter acknowledges that the decision not to defend an existing law deviates from history but contends that it is not unprecedented.
Washington Post writer Amy Goldstein should first look up the definition of “unprecedented”. Then use Google or Yahoo or something. There were many laws that the Obama administration refused to defend, the biggest of which was the Defense Of Marriage Act
Obama Drops Pretense, Administration Will Not Defend DOMA
Today, President Barack Obama concluded, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced, that the administration will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and clarifies that no state has to recognize a homosexual marriage from another state. The President’s announcement is refreshing in its honesty, at least insofar as it drops the farce that the administration has been offering anything even remotely approaching a vigorous (and professional) defense of the federal statute.
On this count, even supporters of gay marriage have acknowledged that the Justice Department’s non-defense of DOMA to date has bordered on creating collusive litigation, and concluded that the “DOJ’s faint-hearted advocacy is no way to run a legal system.â€Â So, notwithstanding the President’s desire to undermine DOMA, his non-enforcement may actually bolster its prospect in the courts: by getting out of the way, the Justice Department will make way for competent and vigorous legal defense of the statute.
Team Obama refused to defend a few other laws, but DOMA was the biggest. And, in other cases, they simply refused to enforce laws they did not like.
And this, ladies and gentleman, is why the Credentialed Media has lost trust and is considered utterly biased in favor against Republicans.
Oh, and there’s this
https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/1004887299992088576
The left hailed several Democrat state Attorneys General who refused to defend their states’ laws limiting legal marriage to normal couples.
Howsomeever, I suspect that, unless Justice Ginsberg succumbs to old age and President Trump gets to appoint someone sensible to replace the old biddy, Obysmalcare will survive the challenge. Chief Justice Roberts surprised everyone with his vote upholding the mandate, and he’s unlikely to change now.
I don’t think it will reach SCUS. It’s the Feds’ job to defend Federal law and they won’t.
Also the Songbird of the Court, Anthony Kennedy, is making retirement noises, so The Donald will get to put another American on the Court.
TEACH typed: Washington Post writer Amy Goldstein should first look up the definition of “unprecedentedâ€.
Can anyone point out where she used the word “unpredented”, other than the above quote from the DOJ letter?
Didn’t think so.
TEACH’s entire premise is based on a lie he created (or stole from the Gateway Pudendum).
Anyway, this means two things: 1. The executive branch can have useful idiots file suits against Congressional laws and refuse to defend said law, invalidating even laws where vetoes are overridden. Brilliant! We truly have an imperial executive branch now. Congress is neutered. Now only judges appointed by a president for life can intervene. 2. If you have a pre-existing condition, prepare your last will and testament.
You child has diabetes? Get a third job and Good luck.
Cancer survivor? See ya. You had a good run.
Previous heart attack? Don’t have another ’cause UHC ain’t gonna cover it!
Maybe the GOP Congress will fix it all. LOL.
Gotta admit the nignorant is correct that no one can point to where in the story does the word “unpredented” appear.
It will be fun watching activist judges try to uphold laws that no one is defending. Of course, they will.
Sorry, but the last line in Teach’s first quote, “The letter acknowledges that the decision not to defend an existing law deviates from history but contends that it is not unprecedented.”
So she’s objecting to the idea it’s not unprecedented.