Typical Govt. Logic

#26
#26
From the article

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, administration lawyers have warned of “extraordinary disruption” if Medicare is forced to unwind countless transactions that are based on payment changes required by more than 20 separate sections of the Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...

Last year, in a lower court filing on the case, Justice Department lawyers said reversing the Medicare payment changes "would impose staggering administrative burdens" on the government and "could cause major delays and errors" in claims payment.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
so, the administration doesn't care about disruptions caused by the Senate's failure to pass a budget in several years but it worries about disruptions to a program that the healhcare law itself strips 500 billion dollars away from?
 
#30
#30
volinbham said:
Why file them with the court if they are not intended to be taken into consideration in the decision?
Click to expand...

"Taken Into Consideration" is the same as:

No - what I'm saying is that it's crap logic to say the law should be upheld because if it isn't it will create a mess.
Click to expand...

Where is that logic stated? I get the "if this, then that"...but where did the addedum "...thus the bill should not be overtuned".

Stating consequences is one thing, saying it is a legitimate legal argument is entirely another. I don't disagree that it is all very suspect...but I'm not jumping to the conclusion that the amdinistration is flat out saying it is a legal argument.

Are they trying to influence the decision? Sure. Are they saying it is a legitimate arguemnt that should play into the constituionality of the decision? I don't know, and neither do you.
 
#32
#32
rjd970 said:
Again...stating consequences, not an argument. I don't get where anybody is saying such consequences should take precendence over constitutionality.
Click to expand...

We must be having a semantic divergence. They are offering this as part of their argument to not overturn the law. They didn't specifically say it trumps Constitutionality but they are saying these are at least mitigating factors for the decision.

Either way, the tortured logic is the same. We made a law that may be problematic but if you overturn it you will create these other problems so think twice about it.

It should be irrelevant in the determination of Constitutionality (which is what the court is ruling on). They goofed by not adding a separability clause and are trying to cover that goof by claiming negative consequences for others.
 
#33
#33
I view it as a coach arguing his case during a video review of a call. He knows the interpretation of the rules won't change, but that isn't going to stop him from trying to influence the decision based on what is best for his cause. It may or may not work, but nobody is saying the rules should be changed.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
We must be having a semantic divergence. They are offering this as part of their argument to not overturn the law. They didn't specifically say it trumps Constitutionality but they are saying these are at least mitigating factors for the decision.

Either way, the tortured logic is the same. We made a law that may be problematic but if you overturn it you will create these other problems so think twice about it.

It should be irrelevant in the determination of Constitutionality (which is what the court is ruling on). They goofed by not adding a separability clause and are trying to cover that goof by claiming negative consequences for others.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If this gets brushed off it will move on to some other reason.

Having OC struck down and ruled unconstitutional will be viewed as the ultimate failure.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
This post hurts my head because it assumes, unconstitutionally, that there is one correct interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Interpret? What do you mean by interpret?

That sounds like some slick lawyer talk for "scour threw the documents to find a loophole".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top