So, law degrees. Do they matter, or don’t they? The White House can’t seem to decide.

As Twitchy reported, earlier today, Obamacare took a hit in the Halbig v. Burwell decision. At issue were just a few words in the legislation, words Nancy Pelosi might’ve noticed had she bothered to read the damn thing before voting to pass it. But according to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, that shouldn’t even matter, because it should be obvious to anyone with a brain what Congress intended.

https://twitter.com/NathanWurtzel/status/491605042689236993

No, this was a thing that actually happened. And what makes it even more ridiculous is that, as Digitas Daily’s Ben Howe notes, Earnest recently referred to Obama as the “constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office.” My, how things have changed!

That “fancy legal degree” sure seemed to matter then … but now? Not so much.

Transcript:

There’s a lot of high-minded case law that’s applied here. There’s also an element of common sense that should be applied as well, which is that you don’t need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who are running the marketplace.

Know what else, Josh? We don’t need a “fancy legal degree” to understand this:

***

Related:

‘In light of Halbig, thank you,’ Nancy! Pelosi’s refusal to read the bill may have helped screw Obamacare

Twitchy coverage of Josh Earnest

  • Orwellian_Dilemma

    I actually agree with the press secretary. One doesn’t need a fancy law degree to know what Congress intended. If you read the statute, the words plainly limit the subsidy to exchanges set up by the states.

    It’s just English.

    • Determined

      It will be interesting to see if any of those 34 states start to set up their own state run exchanges – especially after the 2014 elections. If their voters think they will lose the subsidies – they will push the elected representatives to set up state run exchanges.

      • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

        Nope, the majority of this country didn’t want Ocare, and even more dislike it now. Congress pushed it through against the wishes of their constituents.

        • tops116 ✓Quipper

          Funny how the libbies always talk about “the will of the people,” but when it comes to the ever-unpopular Obamacare, it’s more like “shut up and accept it.”

          • Donald-Now2x/Sarc-w/0calories

            Or “Bend over, grab your ankles and grit yer teeth!”

      • tops116 ✓Quipper

        It’s interesting that you actually believe what you wrote. You honestly believe that Obamacare is a good idea, to which I respond with:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

      • Orwellian_Dilemma

        Why? It will cost them trillions once the feds shift cost to states.

        • TexasMom2012

          Ding! And states like Texas are overrun with poor illegal immigrants who clog our emergency rooms and bring disease like TB. And now bacterial pneumonia, scabies and other communicable diseases. We certainly cant afford Obamacare and will never join the exchanges, period. Besides I bet most of the people who use the exchange vote Democrat anyway…

    • Rick Stones

      Exactly! And the democrat authors of the legislation were very deliberate and intentional about writing this part of the bill. They wrote it exactly this way in a purely partisan political attempt to force Republican governors to create the state health care exchanges, or face political blowback for making health more expensive for their state’s residents. Now, because their dirty little political hackery didn’t work and the Republican governors stood firm, they are being “hoisted with their own petard”. The sad part is that the slimy 9th circuit COA will completely shred the rule of law and overturn the ruling. No more rule of law. No more due process. No more separation of powers… We are in such a rapid state of decline, it’s difficult to maintain hope in our future.

  • Linda

    Not so fast with all the gloating. Another appeals court upheld the subsidies. It ain’t over yet, I’m sure.

    • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

      Oh it will go to SCOTUS, no doubt.

      • Determined

        Possibly first to an en banc hearing in DC though.

        • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

          Yes, I’m sure it will go there first. But it will still end up at SCOTUS.

          • Determined

            especially with the Fourth Circuit also deciding totally opposite today after the DC Circuit.

          • QueenB

            Yes, because that court decides according to their political affiliation, not according to the rule of law.

        • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          As a practical matter, to show you’ve exhausted all possible avenues, you probably have to move for one, and get it denied as a pro-forma deal, to file the “writ of certiorari” petition with the Supremos.

          • Determined

            A motion for en banc would not be denied. With all 11 judges – the decision should get overturned. Then the plaintiff can appeal to Supreme Court. (The Government is the Defendant.)

            An en banc hearing is the preferable next step to allow for further and continued fleshing out and development of all of the legal issues.

            in the meantime – the subsidies will continue. And pressure for the 36 states to establish state run exchanges like Kentucky did will increase.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            It would be an appellate case . . . there are not Defendants. the prevailing party in the lower court would become the “Defendant in Error” in the appeal.

          • Determined

            well, if you want to be technical and correct – it is actually
            Defendant-appellant

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But you have a clash of the circuits, and SCOTUS may just wanna jump in anyway, as they do in such event. The DC Circuit may oblige and allow that to go forward.

          • Determined

            possibly – but i bet they would want an en banc fleshing out of everything first.

    • nc ✓s & balances

      Not the point of the thread, Linda. Doesn’t the hypocrisy bother you even a little? And please don’t respond with a “Bush did it too.” No, he didn’t, no one, not Clinton, not ANYONE, to this degree.

      • Determined

        Having differing opinions in different circuits is very relevant and important.

        • drw

          The problem there is when the court allows their political leanings to affect their ruling. Worse, is when the court seeks any avenue, even remotely related, to skew the evidence to fit their political leanings.
          This is much more common when dealing with a “progressive” jurist.

          • TexasMom2012

            We have Judges on the Supreme Court that have gone to the effort of using international law and the law of other countries in order to rule in their preferred outcome… Spit.

        • QueenB

          Having a court packed in different circuits matters most. So yes, this will probably be overturned. Then its on to the Supreme Court.

        • Malcolm Reynolds

          differing opinions … is very relevant and important.

          The way the democrats understand that: Shoving an opinion and govt force down your throat.

          The way the founders intended that: go screw up your own state idiot. Leave me and mine alone.

          • Determined

            No, the founders intended for the Supreme Court to be just what it is named.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            Tell that to Patty Murray.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Of course, you covered your eyes and started screaming LALALALALALAL to get past that whole “living document” bull squeeze to arrive at your destination too, now didn’t you.

            Edit: and that’s aside from their notions of federalism that’s COMPLETELY lost on your collectivist statist kind.

          • mrspinky85

            Tell that to those mad at the Hobby Lobby Decision.

      • Linda

        I guess I missed the purpose of the thread…and still do. The twitchy author wrote: “As Twitchy reported, earlier today, Obamacare took a hit in the Halbig v. Burwell decision. At issue were just a few words in the legislation,…”

        Which hypocrisy are you referring to? BTW, hHave you ever seen me say “Bush did it too?” Though I’m not sure what “it” would refer to in this case.

        • nc ✓s & balances

          Ok, here we go.
          1. Look at the Title of the thread.
          2. First line: So, law degrees. Do they matter, or don’t they? The White House can’t seem to decide.
          3. Play Earnest video to see him say one thing one day, the opposite a few days later.

          Note: The decision in question is merely an illustration of the topic. Not the main idea.

          Sorry I wasn’t more clear in my previous post.

          • Linda

            Ahhh, ok, I didn’t pick up on the purpose of the thread being on the supposed hyprocrisy. Without the full context in each situation, I’d be reluctant to say if hypocrisy is being displayed.

        • tops116 ✓Quipper

          “I guess I missed the purpose of the thread…and still do.”

          That just might be the first honest thing you’ve ever said.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            made me totally Lolz.
            Now you can stand by for the spinning and splashing of mud so that she may make this completely your fault in 6 posts or less.

          • QueenB

            It’s like Name That Tune on Twitchy!

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        But has she read the decisions before commenting on them?

        You know, and I know, that the point of this thread is that Dems crow when a Court case goes their way and grumble when it doesn’t, and accuse judges who differ with the Dem’s interpretation of not knowing their Constitutional asses from a hole in the ground.

        But she’d rather play Yogi Berra.

        • carmenta

          Worse yet, they accuse the SCOTUS of being racist and misogynistic when decisions go against them…
          After all, what do we need a SC for anyway? All those ‘fancy legal degrees’ and they still dont know as much as the ‘constitutional scholar’ in the Spite House…….funny that

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s “What have you done for me lately?” with them and the Supremos. Ask Oliver Willis, with his critique of the opinion coverage SCOTUS decisions get from the Left and the Right: “Oh, you don’t hear Lefties moaning and groaning”– a week before Hobby Lobby…

      • Linda

        BTW, I hope you’ll scold everyone else who has made and is making that I did.

        EDIT: it is just easier to revamp this bad sentence

        I hope you’ll scold everyone who has made (or will make) the same mistake that I did.

        • nc ✓s & balances

          Why would I? I was responding to your “gloating” remark.

          • Linda

            Ahhhhh, you read into my post that I was gloating…oooookkkkk.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            “Not so fast with all the gloating.” – Linda

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            There you go again . . . holding her to her own words.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            I think Linda should stop and have a cup of coffee.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            Coffee = good . . . Tea = better.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            You’re right!

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “Coffee = good . . . Tea = better.”

            I C whut U dun there! 😉

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            I think she needs a little more upper. Perhaps a good snort of coke.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            Hey now. Maybe a “spa day.”

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Nah, too much risk that she’ll simply slip under the bubbles and drown.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            The bubbles keep tickling her nose.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            lol, that works just as well for the spa day drowning conversation below.

          • QueenB

            I think Linda could stand to cut out all caffeine.

          • Linda

            How, pray tell, is that statement an example of gloating? Especially in light of the rest of my post?

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            There is simply NOTHING you cant deny and turn completely on it’s head is there?
            Either that or you have an incredible amount of difficulty following YOUR OWN conversations.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            That’s a new one, I must admit. Give her an “A” for originality.

          • Linda

            Hey, I’m not the one who threw out an accusation.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            I think B is a foregone conclusion at this point so that’s A (Edit: adding which A I’m talking about for low-info Linda. “There is NOTHING you cant deny and turn completely on it’s head”), since you’re gonna toss out something about an accusation.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            So hey, TheRealFauxGuy gave me a link to an identical conversation where again you couldn’t keep up with your own garbage and I noticed that you were having incredible problems with Fascism.

            Yikes, you did admirably completely ignoring the whole definition so you could redefine it down to simply ‘right wing’. I mean, if that first definition isn’t the democrat party and their wettest dreams to a T…

            noun
            1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

          • Linda

            Yes, I’m not surprised that don’t think I held my own.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Yes, I’m not surprised that don’t think I held my own.

            Is that editors English again? You probably think you ‘held your own’ above too.

            So you’re just gonna breeze right on by that definition? Is this where I should take a page out of ol’ low-info Linda’s playbook and parrot back to you your own words

            “You just proved a point I was making last night that people avoid a challenge to them when they have nothing to come back with.” – Linda

            or should I grab those pictures of you digging a hole and yammer about getting the best of you?

            Props to RealFauxGuy for frothing you up with some reality in that conversation too.

          • Linda

            Nope, there is no such thing as editors English..it would be either editor’s or editors’. Dropping a word by accident in a forum isn’t a big deal, as it is in a formal writing.

            Hey, if you want to have this particular conversation, I suggest putting a comment in that thread and not here.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Unfortunately that one is closed.
            So you just proved your own point …

          • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

            Didn’t take long to get from arguing about the topic to arguing about what you did or didn’t say and how you said it.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            That’s usually 6 posts or less. Gloating about victory when people get tired of arguing with her garbage is 10 or less, depending on the tenacity of the person trying to find just how far he has to talk down to communicate with her.

          • Linda

            So, it’s not ok for me to ask people to justify their accusations? Can you explain how the words I used conveyed “gloating?” I’ll listen to any reason argument other than “just because you said so.”

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Good grief schmuck, nc didn’t accuse you of gloating.

            NC: “I was responding to your “gloating” remark

            You: Ahhhhh, you read into my post that I was gloating…oooookkkkk

            NC: “Not so fast with all the gloating.” – Linda
            Just admit you were wrong and apologize to NC and Abigail for lying.

          • Linda

            I think you need to go back and re-read the whole thread. Listen, I’m not playing this baiting game with you.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Oh I’m all caught up honey.
            You see those lil ol’ quotes above. Those are YOUR and HIS EXACT words.

            And let me add that to those quotes above YOU said

            Hey, I’m not the one who threw out an accusation.”

            You’re so full of bull shyte your eyes are brown.

            I think you whined about something like this to me once. Sorry low-info, you’re a LIAR and you have no character or integrity.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            Thanks, Malcolm, for sticking up for me. Anyone trying to follow what happened would be lost in this part of the thread by now, but I wanted you to know you had it exactly right. We may never know if Linda was lying or just incredibly obtuse (I suspect the latter) but I couldn’t believe she was defending such a silly point.

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            Absolutely no sweat. yw.

        • Malcolm Reynolds

          BTW, I hope you’ll scold everyone else who has made and is making that I did.
          Lemme put on my lil Arnold Drummond imitation to simply utter – whachu talkin’ bout Willis? I’m pretty sure that wasn’t what we like to call English.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            This, from a woman who claims to have been an editor at one time. “Making out like I did,” a more grammatical version of what she said, is a bit colloquial; she’d have been better off using the term “insinuate.” But we’re knuckle-draggers here, and we might not understand such a hundred-buck word.

            Editor, edit thyself.

            http://twitchy.com/2014/07/16/flacktivists-democrats-still-promoting-rapid-response-propaganda-initiative/#comment-1490693717

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            First, I’m impressed that you actually had that handy.
            Second, *facepalm. good grief, she’s a real bottom dwelling piece of work.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I cannot lie. I scrolled back in my own history until I found the exchange she and I had the other evening.

            I take it somewhat personally when people say things like she did. I write the way I write. If you don’t hear the writer’s voice in the post, it might as well be the dull kinda poo you’re likely to read in any old comments section on most sites of the kind which don’t encourage mordant wit and thoughtful reaction to stuff presented mindlessly by social media like Twitchy does.

            Now, right there, in the last ‘graph, I wrote a compound sentence and used a college-level-vocabulary word. It’s the way I talk in real life, too. Now, I’ve been told a time or ten in conversation that I’m presenting something convolutedly and some people don’t follow. I usually laugh, and say “Sorry for thinking in a paragraph, instead of in a simple declarative sentence!”, and then I try to break it down a little more. But it’s not like they fail to grasp the general idea of what I’m saying– they just want to make sure. I run into this with my sister, who is by no means a stupid woman– she’ll tell me, “Guy, are you saying ‘Yadda da,’ just so this doesn’t get TOO intricate?” So I DO try not to be TOO fond of using subordinate clauses and such, in my writing; I imagine I’m speaking with Gal Faux as I write.

            I have no idea, however, who it is that Linda thinks she’s talking to– some half-baked BS’er, maybe. It might be the kind of people she’s used to dealing with in her life.

          • Linda

            I was a technical writer/editor; hence, brevity and succinctness are highly desirable.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I was a Philosophy major (no foolin’). Judge from that. 😉

          • Linda

            Well, that does explain things!!!! My one and only philosophy class was such a shock. I made the mistake of taking it in my first term at college. I came from rural Ohio, where only 25% of the hs graduates pursued any kind of higher education. Professor Levy…I can see still his face and the grin on it as he loved chewing up and spitting out freshmen.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And I went into the financial advice field. Go figure.

          • Linda

            Not much call for philosophers. I double majored in pysch and soc but didn’t want to go to grad school right away (bad decision, in hindsight). Not much call in that field for just BAs and BSs. That lead me to join the Army, where I learned how to be a technical writer the hard way.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, you’d be surprised: “Philosophy is Math, for those who like words and not numbers.” A good grounding in the various subdisciplines of Philosophy (i.e., Logic, Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology and Aesthetics) can teach you all sorts of ways of processing information in almost any field. It’s like the meta-rules, so to speak, and you just adapt them to what you’re studying. Stuff like securities, insurances, tax law, bankruptcy, asset protection– all require that you know a crapload of rules and how they all interrelate. if you are trained to see both forests AND trees, you do much better.

            And all the “Math” (i.e., arithmetic) I need to do, can be done on a “financial calculator”– hooray!

          • Linda

            Kind of glad I’m past all that.

          • Linda

            Oh geez, that one is BAD!!! LOL…I’ll fix it now.

            Guess I was trying to respond to too many different things. BTW, every editor — when writing for publication — knows that they need an editor because no one can see their own mistakes as easily as someone else. On social media, I seldom correct anyone for typos and slips and never as the first comment to them unless they’ve taken a low swing at me.

      • QueenB

        No, it doesn’t. She’s so open minded, her brains have fallen out.

    • MrSnuggles2k2

      Proving yet again we are no longer a nation of laws, only a nation of men

  • AT

    Oh, well then I guess I’ll just start doing what the law intends instead of what it says.

    Traffic laws are intended to create safe driving conditions. But I drive plenty safe without necessarily observing them. Speeding from time to time, maybe California-roll through a stop sign, I definitely don’t slow in school zones if I don’t see any kids around. I’m glad to know that as long as I follow the intention of driving more-or-less safely, that I don’t actually have to follow the letter of the law.

    • walterc

      Try that argument with a judge some time. Of course it might help if you make sure the judge understands that you are quoting the WH Press sec.

  • Elston Gunn

    Josh, not so Earnest!

  • KHSoldier(Ret)&Writer

    Yes, they intended to take control over everyone’s lives by controlling their medical care. No fancy law degree required to figure it out!

  • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

    I intended to become a doctor, so therefore I am one, right?

    • 2ndReconBnCCo

      Only if you stay in a Holiday Inn Express LOL

      • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

        I have! Woohoo! I’m a doctor!

        • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

          I need a full physical. What time is good for you?

          • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

            Umm…I guess I need to buy an appointment book, huh? I’ll need some other stuff too…brb!

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            Bring gloves!

          • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

            Already had those!

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            Bring cheese!

          • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

            Sharp? Gouda?

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            If it’s any gouda it’s gotta be sharp! HI-YO!

          • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

            Ba dum dum

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            Rimjob! Er, SHOT. RIMSHOT!

          • http://www.freedomreconnection.com/ FreedomRecon

            LOL so bad.

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            I’d say I’m ashamed of my behavior but we both know that’s not true.

          • QueenB

            If you were to say you are ashamed of your behavior, I’d be worried.

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com Lord Foggybottom

            On a serious note: nothing sharp please. Only bring items with rounded corners and dull edges. Thank you.

          • Donald-Now2x/Sarc-w/0calories

            Like a nice wheel of Brie?

          • Carolyn#OYSD

            Gloves…get lots of gloves. Just sayin’.

        • QueenB

          If you haven’t stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, if your mother was a doctor, you obviously know all about it, just as because Matt Damon’s mom was a teacher, he knows all about that.

        • johnstretton

          Didn’t you have a Grandfather who had cheekbones like a doctor?

    • Rogue Cheddar

      I got one of those mail order ‘Gynecology’ kits from Walla Walla Washington, so I got that going for me, which is nice.

      • Malcolm Reynolds

        Did you have to draw Tippy the Turtle to get it tho?

        • Rogue Cheddar

          Nah, just sell seeds, lots and lots of seeds.

  • CO2 Producer

    Hell’s infrastructure–built from thousands and thousands of pages of intentions.

  • 2ndReconBnCCo

    If Baghdad Bob had any sons (they have all been WH Press Secs)

  • Evin

    These are the scariest words – state officials or federal officials who are running the marketplace.

    No official should be running a marketplace.

  • Tom

    You don’t need a fancy law degree to know that Nancy Pelosi et al wrote a shit sandwich of a law and force fed it to the American people in the dark of night by parliamentary trickery on a strict party line vote.

  • LegalizeShemp

    You don’t need a fancy law degree to see that the US government has been taken over by arrogant, condescending criminals and gangsters who worship Marx and don’t give a rat’s rear end about the law or any other rule they encounter on their way to total dominance, power and totalitarian fascism.

    • Mikey_Likes_It

      Hit it DEAD ON THE HEAD, Shemp.

      • LegalizeShemp

        Usually Moe hit me dead on the head !

        • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Life must have been fun in the Howard (Horwitz) household growing up, huh? You, Moe, and Curly?

        • Mikey_Likes_It

          Nyuk, nyuk!

    • nc ✓s & balances

      Heck, you don’t even need a HS diploma to see it.

  • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    If I ever hear him utter ‘separation of church and state’ again, I’ll go nuclear.

  • BobB59

    I thought we lost Caveman Lawyer when Phil Hartman left us. “I may not have fancy law degree…….”

  • rainman

    I know that passed out drunk intended to give me his wallet, said the guy without a fancy law degree. Case dismissed!

  • Mary Mommy Happy 2016!

    Obama and liberal Democrats did every dirty tricks possible to get obamacare through congress that they had a majority in 2009, consequences be damn. Obama and Nancy had to bribe and strong arm scare moderate democrat to get their votes.

    • douglasmarks

      Good point and easy safe and healthy delivery Mary mother to be!

      • Mary Mommy Happy 2016!

        Thank you. :)

  • tops116 ✓Quipper

    Funny how Congress intended one thing, but couldn’t be bothered to actually write that out. Gee, it’s almost as if elected officials should read documents before they pass them, especially if they overhaul a sixth of the economy.

    Speaking of reading legislation, remember when Obama promised to read everything that crossed his desk “line by line?” Good times, good times.

    • World B. Free

      Yeah, and every new law would be posted online for all to read, and debates would be aired on CSPAN, etc etc etc. Yada Yada Yada.

  • Askwatch

    Leftists discover Original Intent!

  • Donald-Now2x/Sarc-w/0calories

    Liberal creedo: Law degrees? We don’t need no stinking law degrees! Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa Haaaaaaa! (I wish I could do a meme from Blazing Saddles for this one)

  • DutyFirst

    Ahh, so when you read the law you need to be able to interpret that congress had two distinct intents – “all citizens get access to subsidies” and at the same time with not one single word more “the territories are not states and therefore exempt from Ocare”. Methinks it is not a law degree you need but an incredibly ‘free’ mind that is not constrained by logical thought processes which for most of us would require some kind of pharmaceutical effect or psychotic episode.

    • BobB59

      How can you know Congressional intent when the Speaker of the House admitted that she did not know what was in the bill, therefore we needed to pass it to find out?

  • AT

    Are date rape laws obsolete now? Never mind what she says, what matters is what she intended. No means yes, baby!

    #DemocratWarOnWomen

  • mickeyco

    I wouldn’t bet on it, but I sure can’t remember the Supreme Court ever ruling a law was OK as it stood because even a non-lawyer could tell what the law really was meant tos say.

  • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

    Legislative intent is irrelevant if the language of the statute is unambiguous. Did these people get their law degrees from the back of a cereal box?

  • frozeninbemidji

    Well now that you’ve been spanked, maybe next time you’ll get somebody with one of them there fancy law degrees to write :) your un-Constitutional laws.

  • Rogue Cheddar

    Oh you mean like the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ clause?

  • Rogue Cheddar

    Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?
    Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
    Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
    Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Your Honor.
    Judge Chamberlain Haller: [firm tone]Overruled.

    • nc ✓s & balances

      I never get tired of it!

      • Rogue Cheddar

        Fred Gwynne owned in that role.

        • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

          A very underrated actor.

        • nc ✓s & balances

          They were all letter perfect. The writing, the acting, the setting, everything. Just perfect!

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            I thought the whole purpose of the film was to have Marissa in a different outfit every scene.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            Watch it again.

          • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

            I have . . . don’t notice much else though.

          • nc ✓s & balances

            You think that’s why she got the Oscar?

            Here’s a little bit of Oscar history. It’s kinda fun:

            http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ej8EpWYFhnw

  • Rogue Cheddar

    What, another unexpected failure of message?!

  • Jeffrey Rogers

    You don’t need any degree at all to know what founding fathers intended when they said “shall not be infringed” either.

  • Jeffrey Rogers

    You don’t need any degree at all to know what the founding fathers intended when they said “unlawful search and seizure” either.

  • Jeffrey Rogers

    You don’t need any degree at all to know what the founding fathers intended when they said “endowed by their CREATOR”

  • Acethepug

    President Boyfriend must be protected.

    At. All. Costs.

    I wonder WHICH Constitution Barack Obama studied? It clearly wasn’t the United States Constitution …

    • nc ✓s & balances

      Emphasis on the “Con.”

  • HarpyHarp

    Remember, “earnest” doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth. It just means he wants you to believe he is.

  • ledzepp8

    This reminds me of The Social Network, where Zuckerberg says, “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you would have invented Facebook.”

    If congress (democrats) meant for anyone eligible to get subsidies on Obamacare, they would have put that in the law. Instead, they explicitly said, eligible people could only get subsidies if they signed up thru state exchanges (excluding federal exchanges).

  • TJ

    The Democrats in Congress intended to have Socialized healthcare but they could not put it in the bill.

    • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/ FlatFoot

      Single-Payer has always been their primary goal, but they didn’t have the votes… they’re doing all this stuff on purpose… this is how they’ll get that done… to them, the means certainly justifies the end.

  • Jack Deth

    Attn: Mr. Earnest.

    And by “Congress”, do you mean the IRS, Special Interest Groups and Unions large and small. Who CAN’T write law in the first place?!!!

  • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

    When it comes to Obamacare, it’s “What they intended was much more important than what they wrote.”

    But when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, any attempt to discuss the Founders’ intent (even citing documents like the Federalist Papers) gets you labeled a “bitter clinger”.

  • Charles Hargrave

    We just got rid of one of the biggest liers in the form of a Press Secretary and now we have another saying the same lies as Jay Carney,they must think Americans are really stupid.

  • ISurvivedaBlueState

    If Congress intended it, all they had to do was state it. Which they didn’t.

  • Thale Taxurfeet

    Rather than adhering to the letter of the Law, i.e. Textualism, instead let’s just go with perceived intent, as long as the perception* agrees with that of the head Bandito.

    * Perceptions change daily, stinkin’ badges not needed, and all that.

  • Thomas

    How could Congress have intended it when by admission of Speaker Pelosi they didn’t know what was in it until after it had passed

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      To go by that line of thought, you’d have to say “Congress intended to pass an act which was a welter of legislation promising everything to everybody, which ended up being an incoherent jumble.” (Which statement can be true of a LOT of bills, not just Obamacare!)

  • TexasMom2012

    It wasn’t what Congress intended? This was written and voted on exclusively by the Democrats. Republicans were not even allowed in the meetings. This is solely a Democrat screwup. But it was an intentional error in order to bring down the “cost” of Obamacare. The law was also written to say the states run the exchange in attempt to make it sound more constitutional rather than an unprecedented federal overreach of power. Insurance is a state issue not a federal one.

  • Amy

    And, apparently with all those lawyers in Congress, Senate and WH, none of them actually was able to express in writing their intent… a little scary IMHO. BTW, if you read the law, it’s actually quite clear that the subsidies were supposed to be transferred from the State(s) to the new insureds. The problem arose with the “uncooperative” states and the massive amount of regulations written after the law was passed. Which, all those brilliant attorney(s) in Washington apparently didn’t think about either….from a little scary to full on nightmare that these people are in charge of anything.

  • Zach Smith

    Instead of laws, we can just have psychics who divine the will of Congress, because Congress is obviously too stupid to actually write down what they mean.

  • Wanderer

    It’s a basic principle of statutory construction that if the plain language of the statute is clear, then it doesn’t matter one bit what the legislature “really meant” as long as it’s not flagrantly absurd (which is a pretty damned high bar to get over, think of the random stoner humor or out-there anime you see on late-night cartoon channels and you start to get an idea). Apparently you need a “fancy law degree” to understand that a law means what it says.

    Kind of emphasizes why you should read it BEFORE you pass it so you know what’s in it, huh?

  • Aimee

    If you don’t go by what the law actually says, wouldn’t a number of “intentions” be possible, depending on the bias of the reader?

  • Marvin Nelson

    Damn, I thought that Carney was a snake. Old Josh makes him look like a Boy Scout. Did Jay study under this moron?

    • Thale Taxurfeet

      Don’t ask…

      Don’t tell!