Patterico's Pontifications

7/23/2014

Drafting Error BS

Filed under: General — JD @ 11:02 am

[guest post by JD]

This is the best article I have read about the new “drafting error” claims from the outraged Leftists and MFM.

Drafting error, my arse.

—-JD

32 Responses to “Drafting Error BS”

  1. We need to pass the bill to find out what isnt in it, specifically, subsidies for plans purchased through federal exchanges.

    JD (81a25b)

  2. In an honorable world, Nancy Pelosi and Hairy Reed would be practicing seppuku on the Capitol lawn in atonement for their horrible, horrible legislation.

    JVW (feb406)

  3. Congress misspoke on paper?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  4. I don’t want them to practice….I want them to just do it.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  5. #2 I

    n an honorable world, Nancy Pelosi and Hairy Reed would be practicing seppuku on the Capitol lawn in atonement for their horrible, horrible legislation.

    JVW (feb406) — 7/23/2014 @ 11:30 am

    Why would they practice seppuku when the legislation brought us the perfect health care legislation.

    joe (debac0)

  6. Correcting for a “drafting error” almost seems akin to granting equitable relief. It’s like a “do-over” when the facts really don’t allow you to claim victory.

    But, why would you get any equitable relief if your own conduct led to the problem? If you draft something then fail to read it before passing it, how’s that not entirely your fault?

    How can you tell the intent of congress when no one read the bill prior to passage?

    JohnG (65db1e)

  7. What gets me is the “Intent” argument; hell we KNOW what the intent was. The Democrats and Spineless Republicans intended to pass a bill called Affordable Care Act, no matter how badly it was botched and no matter what was lurking in it. Well, they did, and now they can fucking live with the consequences.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)

  8. JohnG – there was no error. That is how they planned on setting it up.

    At Slate, Weigel the JournoLista said that an actual reading of the text of the law is a crazy reading of congressional intent.

    JD (81a25b)

  9. R.I.P. Robert Newhouse, former Dallas Cowboys running-back

    Icy (e6ea2c)

  10. Maybe it was the subsidy line that was the drafting error, not what it applied to. Or maybe the prohibition on funding abortifacients was left out by mistake. Or the last two words “April Fools!” were accidentally omitted.

    Three’s a difference between correcting typos and correcting mean-os.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  11. Why do we keep electing lawyers to congress if they actually cannot write or understand laws? Why not people in professions where lying runs up against reality, like engineering or plumbing?

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  12. no, it’s not a drafting error, it’s a template error, the presumption was the ACA was so good, like pecan pie, with rocky road ice cream, that everyone would sign on,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  13. obamacare was just too good to be true i guess

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  14. It was their own egotism and arrogance: it never occurred to them that states wouldn’t all be clamoring to get on board. It was never about us, the public, the American people – it was about them.

    Dana (301ccb)

  15. obamacare was just too good to be true i guess

    Well, you know, it was supposed to (1) provide full coverage to everyone while (2) driving costs down and (3) lowering the federal deficit, and at the same time (4) cement Obama’s reelection in 2012. Except for the fact that it has accomplished none of the first three, I think it’s been just ducky.

    JVW (feb406)

  16. No, they were trying to be too cute by half in getting an expansion of Medicaid without having to pay for it, and the Gov’s told they to Get Stuffed, and it all started to fall apart.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  17. “told them” not “told they”

    askeptic (efcf22)

  18. But it’s a tax! They wanted Mr. Halbig’s $21.00 and this was the only way they could get it. Can’t you see, can’t see, why can’t you see that it’s a tax?

    nk (dbc370)

  19. 2. In an honorable world, Nancy Pelosi and Hairy Reed would be practicing seppuku on the Capitol lawn in atonement for their horrible, horrible legislation.

    JVW (feb406) — 7/23/2014 @ 11:30 am

    In an honorable world, we wouldn’t have ever known who Nancy Pelosi and Hairy Reid were.

    Steve57 (a714dd)

  20. If it was a drafting error and if the “intent” of the House and the Senate was to allow federal exchanges to provide subsidies, then it should be a small matter to draft up a correcting piece of legislation and get it passed.

    KellyT (3a6a26)

  21. the fascists are all up in the ass of “drafting errors” these days

    it’s just where they are at this stage of their development

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  22. In real life drafting errors can cost you your job. In Washington, it just means another day at work. The stacked courts will take care of it as long as it benefits the left. Who cares anymore?

    It’s Obama’s world. We’re just living it.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  23. Our lil juiceboxer pal Ezra say s “What? Me Worry?”:

    “The Supreme Court simply isn’t going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar. . . . For Halbig to unwind Obamacare, the Supreme Court would ultimately have to rule in the plaintiff’s favor. And they’re not going to do that. By the time SCOTUS even could rule on Halbig the law will have been in place for years.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html

    elissa (d14cd1)

  24. the Supreme Court would ultimately have to rule in the plaintiff’s favor. And they’re not going to do that.

    when berobed pervert “Supreme Court” justice John Roberts dunkers his reese’s peanut butter cup creme oreo chocolate sandwich cookies into a glass of milk, he takes great care that he doesn’t ripple the placid milky surface

    but that doesn’t mean he’s not touching himself at the same time, touching himself furiously, while he thinks up new outfits for his kids to wear

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  25. Once he has finished correcting the drafting errors in the ACA he will turn his attention to correcting the drafting errors in the Constitution, especially those careless ones in the Bill of Rights and of course term limits.

    machinist (313c6a)

  26. I thought it was SETTLED LAW. The LAW of the LAND. How can the THE LAW OF THE LAND be changed??? And how can it be changed by THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?? The entire LAW was designed as a SLIDE RULE. Anyone with an ounce of intellect knew that in 2009. Christmas 2009. Christmas EVE 2009. Did the AFFORDABLE CARE LAW, allow Sebellius to take your gun??? Who knows. Perhaps tomorrow Obama will DECREE IT, and BOEHNER will light up another CAMEL and get to thinkin’.

    Gus (70b624)

  27. We have to pass the law to see what is in it, then we have to change it at our whim, whenever we like.

    Imagine having such power, with a Conservative in office.

    Gus (70b624)

  28. Hey, come on. This could be BIG:

    Letting idiots utter, complete fools into Congress: Clearly, a “drafting error” by the original authors of the US Constitution.

    I think it’s clear, we need a “damnfool test” before you can attempt to join the Federal legislature. What the heck, apply it to all forms of government service…

    Smock Puppet, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  29. Liberals in governmental power. Clearly a voting error by the American people…

    Jus’ sayin’…

    Smock Puppet, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  30. If it was a drafting error and if the “intent” of the House and the Senate was to allow federal exchanges to provide subsidies, then it should be a small matter to draft up a correcting piece of legislation and get it passed.

    Um, no. The other arguments made here are valid, but this one is not. Even it it really was nothing more than a pure drafting error, it would be impossible to pass a correction act now, because Congress has changed since then, and the current congress would never have passed ACA in the first place, and has no interest in fixing its errors. That doesn’t tell us anything at all about the intent of the congress that did pass it (barely).

    Milhouse (469487)

  31. Ezra the JournoLista’s hackery is both sad, and comical.

    JD (81a25b)

  32. Obviously, several commenters failed to read JD’s linked article. Here’s the money quote: (emphasis added)

    The clear text of the law repeatedly demonstrates that plans purchased via federal exchanges were never meant to be treated the same as plans purchased by state-based exchanges. Despite its assertions, the IRS was never granted the statutory authority to hand out tax credits related to plans purchased via a federal health exchange.

    All of that of course begs the question: if the law’s authors originally intended to constrain subsidies to state plans, what was the rationale for the IRS about-face in 2011? That’s actually an easy one to answer: the administration never imagined that so many states would refuse to establish Obamacare exchanges. The subsidies for state exchange plans were meant to be pot sweeteners—incentives for states to set up their own exchanges. If fines for mandate non-compliance were Obamacare’s stick, the subsidies for state exchange health plans were the carrot. To the law’s backers, that plan made sense: the White House didn’t really want to have to manage 51 separate exchanges. They wanted the states to do all the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, several dozen legislatures and governors had different plans.

    ropelight (2ad9da)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1843 secs.