I agree with many of the arguments that have been made by people like Prof. Adler, Michael Cannon, and others – that in King v. Burwell, IRS subsidies should be struck down as unconstitutional because they’re not authorized in states where the federal government operates an exchange.

But, the Court will not agree.

The federal government, including the federal courts, cannot be trusted to shut down such a massive expansion of federal power. Congress cannot be trusted. New Republican majorities cannot be trusted. The Courts cannot be trusted.

The only way to stop Obamacare is through state and individual resistance. That is, nullification.

Details

‘A Collection of Politicians in Robes’

That’s what Yale Law School professor and The New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse accused members of the Supreme Court of being after they agreed to hear the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. For his part, Princeton professor and fellow NYT columnist Paul Krugman called this a “cruel absurdity,” and suggested the court would “pervert the law to serve political masters.”

Details

Obamacare and the Language of Law

On Sept. 30, Judge Ronald A. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma delivered his decision in Pruitt v. Burwell, the third of four related cases to have received a judgment. The four cases challenge the IRS ruling that ObamaCare subsidies will be given to policyholders who’ve purchased health insurance in exchanges established by the federal government. Like the verdict in Halbig v. Burwell, Judge White found for the plaintiffs and against the IRS, and he vacated the IRS regulation pending appeal. The other case to have received a judgment is King v. Burwell, which found for the government. So we have a 2-1 split. The U.S. Supreme Court must eventually weigh in.

Details

Don’t Count On Courts to Protect Your Privacy – They Protect the Status Quo

With it becoming increasingly clear every day that Congress will not take any substantive action to stop NSA spying, some privacy advocates have begun to pin their hopes on the federal courts.

If history serves as any indication, they will find themselves equally disappointed with the judiciary. Courts tend to defer to the government, especially when it comes to “national security.”

Details