Sessions explains to Congress rationale for not defending ObamaCare
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday defending the Department of Justice's (DOJ) rationale for not defending the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.
"As you know, the Executive Branch has a longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," Sessions wrote.
"But not every professionally responsible argument is necessarily reasonable in this context," he continued, adding this is "a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense" of the law.
The department argued in court on Thursday that key components of the Obama-era law are unconstitutional, siding in large part with a challenge to the law from 20 GOP-led states.
The DOJ points to the Supreme Court's ruling in 2012 that upheld ObamaCare's individual mandate — that people have insurance or face a tax penalty — as constitutional under Congress's taxing power.
After Congress repealed the mandate penalty as part of last year's tax bill, the GOP-led states and the DOJ argue the mandate itself is no longer a tax and is now invalid.
They also argue that key pre-existing condition protections cannot be separated from the mandate and should be invalidated, while the remainder of the law can stay.
Sessions's move marks a break for the DOJ, which typically defends federal laws when they are challenged in court.
The move shows the Trump administration is not willing to defend the law, which it strongly disagrees with.
However, this is not the first time an administration has broken with precedent.
Former President Obama's Justice Department declined to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, in 2011.
Peter Sullivan contributed.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
63 visitors
Obamacare seems to have been under litigation from the day it was conceived.
Obamacare has no rational defense.
Destroying it has no defense. Especially, when our Republicans who have been trying to destroy it for years now, have nothing to replace it with that is acceptable. Except, reality is, they don't have anything at all to replace it with.
Neither does the healthcare system before it
Except the CONGRESS did in fact 'sever' the mandate tax penalty [though the mandate is STILL on the books] from the statute and CONGRESS chose to leave the rest of the law in place, including pre-existing conditions. The ACA IS 'operating in the way Congress designed it to'. If it is 'untenable' it is up to CONGRESS to fix it.
As for Sessions' claim that "But not every professionally responsible argument is necessarily reasonable in this context," he continued, adding this is "a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense" of the law.
There will be multiple state AGs who have had no problem making 'reasonable arguments' to defend the law. Judging for the brief, it's Trump's DOJ that seems incapable of making 'professionally responsible argument' for why they are abdicating.
One has to wonder why Sessions felt the need to send Ryan a letter, since Wisconsin is one of the states that is party to the suit and for the last 8 years Ryan has been the champion for the repeal of, at minimum, the mandate so one would expect that he is well versed in the conservative talking points for striking down the ACA at all costs. Of course, once 'large and in charge' Ryan has failed to put the bill on the floor, already passed in prior sessions, to do just that.
Oh and BTW, about 130 million people have 'pre-existing conditions' and I bet a goodly percentage of them are Trump voters.
With the mandate and its “tax” gone, the tax that the Chief Justice used to justify it is gone, thus it’s unconstitutional. The court had already ruled imposing fines, coercing states, and implementing it under general welfare unconstitutional in the ruling they used to approve it, so with the justifying tax now gone too, there’s no constitutional grounds to preserve it.
Yet the mandate isn't gone so the rest of your post is moot.
Mandate is still there...
Individual mandate gone? Not really, and perhaps more states to come ...
The federal mandate has one final year to go. States might choose to do it on their own.
Nope the mandate still exists.
Thank you Capt. Obvious.