Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Thursday, May 2, 2019

DoJ = Bunch of Political Hacks

The Trump administration formally declared its opposition to the entire Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, arguing in a federal appeals court filing that the signature Obama-era legislation was unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Such a decision could end health insurance for some 21 million Americans and affect many millions more who benefit from the law’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions and required coverage for pregnancy, prescription drugs and mental health.
Looking at a straight political calculus, OK. Trump is playing to his base. The Democrats are likely welcoming this fight. They're going to broadcast that Trump is actively trying to take health insurance away from tens of millions. Those with pre-existing conditions are going to get screwed. The congressional Republicans and those thinking of running for office know this; this is the last fight that they want to have next year.

"Donald Trump and the Republicans Want You to Die of Pre-Existing Conditions"-- the attack ads almost write themselves.

But, on a systemic note, this is fucking dreadful. It's the job of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of the laws that have been enacted. Congress enacts the law, the Executive enforces and defends the law, and the Court says what the law is. If any president disagrees with the law, the proper route is to go to Congress to change the law, not to slime its way into court and attack the law there.

Worse, how are we, as a people, supposed to know what conduct is illegal and what isn't if the enforcement of the law is openly acknowledged to be up to the whims of the Executive branch? If ignorance of the law is no defense to breaking it, now we have to know what laws are effectively voided because the prosecutors are going to look the other way?

Before you ask whether or not this means that I believe it's wrong for prosecutors to refuse to enforce low-level laws against the possession and use of pot. Yes, I believe that it should be legalized. I also believe that the drug laws should be enforced until they are changed. Not enforcing the law because it's not politically popular is wrong.[1]

It's no stretch to think of other times when the law wasn't enforced because it was politically expedient to do so. The Fifteenth Amendment was not enforced throughout the South for over ninety years. Laws against murder were similarly not enforced, depending on the skin color of the victim and the killer.[2]

This isn't rocket science, people. This is basic, grade-school level civics: The Legislative Branch enacts the law, the Executive Branch enforces the law; the Judicial Branch says what the law is.

Trump, though, is a wannabee autocrat/tyrant. He arrogates to himself the job of saying what the law is. And his acolytes, like Bill the Bootlicker Barr and Miss Lindsey, go right along with it.
[1] The better approach would be to target the rich areas for enforcement, for after a few dozen rich kids get sent to the slammer for pot possession, the laws might change quickly. Because money talks.
[2] No, I'm not accusing the Trump Administration of being pro-lynching. But it would not be a total shock if they were.


w3ski said...

Then there is the other side, where laws enacted are not followed.
Here in Ca, we the people legalized Pot for adult consumption, State Wide.
Now we have many local counties that won't follow the law and still treat it as prohibited.
Is it legal or is it not? I thought we voted that it is legal.

dinthebeast said...

This one is gonna bite them on the ass at the ballot box. Healthcare in 2018 was maybe the best example of Democrats getting an election strategy right I have ever seen.
I don't have much confidence that the electorate will be appropriately appalled by the behavior of the DOJ, but lack of healthcare is frightening on a level that's harder to ignore than the fear of brown people the Republicans are selling.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B said...

But the whole constitutionality of BarryCare is up for debate....

Forcing someone to buy a product (insurance) so that others can have it for free or at a reduce price isn't Constitutional.
Ruling it a "Tax" doesn't make it so.

And if the DOJ were anything but a bunch of political whores working to the whim of their (current) elected master, then Hillary would be in jail and tried for mishandling of classified documents (and there are probably many examples with the political poles reversed too).

People will still be able to get health insurance even if BarryCare goes away entirely....Just a a cost that is correct for the benefit they get, not at prices subsidized by other citizens.

Comrade Misfit said...

Oh, jeez. I have to tell you, B, whenever I read the "but, but, Hillary" stuff, I know that we're going to be treated to yet another tired dose of whataboutism.

Beyond that, did you even read what I wrote? Whether or not the ACA is unconstitutional is up to the courts to decide. The DOJ is supposed to defend the duly enacted laws, every fricking one. That's how the system is set up.

Otherwise, what we get, and what we have here, is a president who is trying to get through the courts what he couldn't get through Congress when his own party held both sides.

it's the behavior of a petty toddler-in-chief.

Robbie said...

B, so people with pre-existing conditions can still get health care coverage. But the premiums would be so the average person won't be able to afford it.

Millions of people who will lose their coverage are Trump voters. I hate to sound awful but if they lose their health coverage, they deserve it because they were dumb enough to vote for Trump. Gullible is a word to describe them.

CenterPuke88 said...

B., as the only “First World” Country without some form of Universal Healthcare, I’m sure you’re proud. Now this effort to remove the ability of millions to get or maintain affordable healthcare should really make everyone say “‘Merica, Hell Yea,”

B said...

Ms Misfit:

Perhaps you are correct about the "whataboutism". Doesn't change the fact though.

My intent was not to "whatabout", but to point out the fact that the DOJ has always been the tool of the current administration...the Hillary example being the most recent and most egregious example.

You seem surprised and angry that the Department of "justice" is following the whim of the current president. Why did you think it would be any different with our current president than the precious one? Or the one before that, or before that....

DTWND said...

So what is worse? "mishandling of classified documents" or direct dealings with a foreign adversary to gain personal and political advantage? Just wondering.


Dark Avenger said...

What “whims” did the DOJ follow under the Obama Administration, B?

B said...

We have proof of the mishandling of classified documents, not so the other.

But to think that the DOJ didn't follow the whims of Barry in Hillary's (and Huma's) case is foolish. And while we may disagree on our philosophies, none of you are so unintelligent that you cannot be aware of the fact that that is obvious.

Not "Whataboutism", simply stating facts. History is replete with other examples on both sides if you bother to look.

Neither of which makes the fact that our Department of "Justice" is, or ever has been, more than a political tool of the then current administration's whims. It has been this way since before any of us were born, and will, likely, continue that way long after we are dead.

DTWND said...

No proof? That’s hilarious!

Proof. /prōōf/ noun. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament.

If I’m not mistaken, there was a recent report issues by some guy that provided “proof” (or you can choose one of the above synonyms) that this administration DID meet with a foreign adversary for personal/political benefit. And this post by Ms. Fit points to the issue of the Department of Justice (which I’m pretty sure issued the recent report) opting not to uphold the duties to which they are tasked.

The fact that the DoJ (under a Republican administration) has not conducted an investigation of the opposing candidate in the 2016 election speaks to the merits of some people’s ‘whataboutism’.

Like Donnie, it seems that you keep using the same refrain over and over and over, in the hopes that the repetition will somehow deflect and replace the truth and fact.


Dark Avenger said...

But to think that the DOJ didn't follow the whims of Barry in Hillary's (and Huma's) case is foolish.

Didn’t say that, I just asked if you could cite concrete cases where Barry and Huma went as far as Donnie, who wanted Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself in the Müeller investigation despite a DOJ reg that Sessions followed when he recused himself.

If you could produce concrete examples of Barry, Eric, Huma, etc, not just following Obama policies, but violating regs to do so, please do so and relieve me of the burden of foolishness and naïveté.

B said...

DA: The Server is one example. and Huma's laptop for another. Both violations of regs. In fact, violations of LAWS.

As for other examples: open your eyes.
You are neither blind nor stupid. (nor, I think, naive).

It happens. On both sides. Every administration.
'Tain't right, but that is how it is.

D: If the Mueller report actually said what you implied, then the Dems would be clamoring for charges....They aren't. Donnie may be guilty. But proving it is apparently not possible even after a years long investigation and millions of dollars worth of lawyers time wasted.

Dark Avenger said...

The facts are otherwise in the cases you cite , B.
Comey said the FBI had concluded that neither Weiner nor Abedin had committed a crime in their handling of the email.


Your lazy "both sides do it" is still unsupported by facts. You want to just shout "lock her up", like Cheetolini.

B said...

So you deny she had used her unsecured email for classified data?

That there were tens of emails that should not have been outside of secure government servers?

ReallY? Facts say otherwise. Comey chose (or was ordered) not to prosecute....He himself said that the mishandling occurred....they sued the term "unintentional".... For anyone else, such behavior would have gotten jail time.

If you can't face facts or the truth, or are just cherry picking articles that don't address the full topic, then I can't see bothering with you.

I'm done here. Believe what you wish. I got better things to do than debate with a delusional person.

Dark Avenger said...

My challenge wasn’t about e-mails, B, it was to list examples of Barry, Hillary, Eric, etc., instructing underlings to violate DOJ or other government regs.

As for “But her e-mails!”

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinoton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.” He did not explain the rationale behind this finding

Well, 110 is 11 tens, so technically you’re correct.

Comey made clear the sensitivity of some of the information, saying “seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

Yes, the lack of evidence on your part to my challenge, is because I’m delusional.

Thanks for clearing that up.