Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Republicans failed to repeal ObamaCare in 2017 by a single vote in the Senate. But they are still trying to drive a stake through its heart in secret using yet another tendentious legal Calvinball case to try to get the courts to strike it down as unconstitutional.

With a recent decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, there are some signs that it might actually happen. As the 2020 election campaign picks up, it's worth remembering that the Republican Party is dead set on taking millions of Americans' health insurance away, or failing that, making it as expensive and terrible as possible, by any means they can dream up.

First, the legal background. The suit is Texas vs. United States, filed by a number of right-wing state attorneys general. It is very obviously a backfilled pretext trying to get through judicial activism what the Republican Congress could not pass. Here's how the logic goes. Back in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare could stand in part by reinterpreting its individual mandate to buy insurance as a tax. Then, in 2017, Congress passed a tax cut for the rich that also got rid of the individual mandate tax leaving a legal requirement with no teeth.

So the suit argues the mandate must be struck down since you can't have a tax that collects no money and because, when Congress was designing ObamaCare, most agreed that the individual mandate was a key part of the law, the whole thing needs to go. (The Trump administration has also refused to defend the law.)

As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explain, on the legal merits this argument is absolutely preposterous. The suit argues that Congress repealed ObamaCare in secret with the 2017 tax bill despite voting against an explicit repeal that very same year. And when Congress was designing the ACA, they included the individual mandate because all the liberal wonks agreed you needed one to stave off the dreaded cost death spiral within the ObamaCare exchanges. The Supreme Court has previously held that a law can stand with an unconstitutional portion removed so long as it is "fully operative" without it and not only does it turn out that you don't actually need the individual mandate to keep the exchanges functioning, there are tons of parts of ObamaCare that have nothing to do with the mandate or exchanges at all, like the Medicaid expansion or allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Like the Halbig v. Burwell case from years ago, this is a "Monty Python-esque exercise in extreme tendentiousness" from bug-eyed Federalist Society crackpots. If it weren't this it would be something else, like maybe arguing ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it enslaves doctors, thus violating the 13th Amendment. The only problem would be the legal team huffing just enough paint thinner so that they could make the argument with a straight face before the bench.

And yet, the notoriously reactionary 5th Circuit basically accepted this argument in a ruling from earlier this month. They ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but remanded the question of whether the whole law should therefore be thrown out back to the lower court. There very likely won't be a final decision before the 2020 election which is almost certainly a political move. The partisan Republican hacks President Trump has been stuffing onto the federal bench obviously don't want to blow up his chances of reelection. If millions of people are going to lose their insurance via conservative judicial rule-by-decree, best not to do it during an election year when your party is the presidential incumbent.

But make no mistake, ObamaCare is still very much on the ballot in 2020. If Trump wins reelection, he will very likely be able to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, and that will almost certainly spell doom for the law (with this lawsuit or another one). If that happens, something like 20 million people will lose their insurance immediately as Medicaid is drastically rolled back, the exchanges are shut down, and anybody between 18 and 25 who is still on their parents' coverage is kicked off. Protections for people with preexisting conditions would be removed, and private insurers could once again place annual and lifetime coverage limits on their policies.

The slow-motion collapse of the private health insurance system would accelerate as well, as cost-control policies designed to slow the cancerous cost bloat that is eating the American economy from the inside would be deleted. More broadly, there would be spectacular chaos within the health care system, which was totally overhauled to accommodate ObamaCare changes and this time there will be no guiding hand from Congress.

So while there is a never-ending parade of war crimes, corruption, and general insanity from the Trump regime to distract us, let's not forget that Republicans are also gunning for your health insurance. If they can't take it away, by God they'll make it as crummy and expensive as possible.

See more here:
Republicans are still trying to steal your health insurance - The Week

Criminal justice reforms that take effect tomorrow put public safety at risk, according to Republican members of the state legislature, who called a press conference this morning outside the criminal court building and correctional facility in Riverside to sound an alarm.

The new laws eliminate cash bail for all misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, requiring police to issue appearance tickets to people arrested for an array of alleged crimes, including manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and nearly all drug crimes.

They also impose new disclosure requirements on police and prosecutors that opponents say jeopardize victims and witnesses.

We voted against every one of these fake criminal justice reforms, State Senate Minority Leader John Flanagan said. The public is going to be less safe as a result of the enactment of these laws by one-party rule, he said.

The criminal justice reform package was passed as part of the legislatures budget bill in March. There were no hearings on any of the legislative proposals, Flanagan said no input from corrections officers, law enforcement or us, he said. The Democrats own this.

Democrats in control of both houses of the State Legislature and the executive office pushed through an agenda including the criminal justice reform measures without Republican support.Assemblyman Anthony Palumbo speaking at a press conference outside the Suffolk County Correctional Facility Dec. 31. Photo: Julia-Anna Searson

Second District Assemblyman Anthony Palumbo (R-New Suffolk) called 2019 the year of the defendant.

Palumbo said comparisons to the law already in effect in New Jersey were disingenuous.

This does not mirror New Jersey, Palumbo said. The New York proposal, like New Jerseys law, originally had a level of dangerousness assessment. There was a presumption of release, he said, but the criminal court judge had discretion to determine a person was dangerous and should be required to post bail.

But the Democrats decided to eliminate that, Palumbo said, removing all discretion from the local judge.

If I sold enough Fentanyl to kill the city of Albany Id be home before the police officer who arrested me, he said.

This is unsafe, Palumbo, a former prosecutor, said. In session 2020 this needs to be fixed.

Lou Viscusi, president of the Suffolk County Corrections Officers Association, said his experience working in the jail for over 20 years, gives him firsthand knowledge of just how dangerous these people are the are being let back into our communities.

Theyre not just shoplifters or good people that had a bad day, Viscusi said. They are criminals with long rap sheets drug dealers, sex offenders and gang members that have proven they will recommit every chance they get.

Viscusi said judges have been applying the new rules for the past two months to avoid a mass release. As a result, he said, the jails population count is down about 300.

Republicans have introduced bills that would establish a one-year moratorium on the new laws.

In the face of mounting public backlash, some Democrats have also begun to express concerns. South Fork Assemblyman Fred Thiele (I, D- Sag Harbor) introduced a bill that would expand the list of crimes that judges have discretion to require bail for.

But the governor and Democratic leadership do not want to revisit the issues, Flanagan said.

It is change, and change is often opposed by the system, Cuomo said in a news conference earlier this month. This change has been done by other states The wheels did not fall off the car.

The purpose of bail is to secure a defendants return to court. But people who are arrested and cannot afford to post bail are incarcerated before theres any adjudication of guilt often for long periods of time. Six out of 10 people in U.S. jails nearly half a million people are awaiting trial, according to the U.S. Department of Justices Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The money bail system disproportionately impacts African-Americans and Hispanics, according to the Pretrial Justice Institute, which advocates for bail reform. Compared to white men charged with the same crime and with the same criminal histories, African-American men receive bail amounts 35% higher; for Hispanic men, bail is 19% higher than white men, PJI says.

Suffolk County Comptroller John Kennedy decried the financial impact of the changes on local municipalities.

Town and village justice courts will be absolutely overwhelmed by the economic impact, Kennedy said. They cannot absorb it.We are an eyelash away from financial collapse now, he said. This is the governor pushing us further over the edge.

Riverhead Town Councilwoman Jodi Giglio said she is very concerned about the unfunded mandate, but in addition to that, downtown businesses are already being affected in that this law comes without any funds for transportation or transportation to get back to where they live or committed the crime, she said.

A solution is an expedited review of three judges, within 3 days, to determine if bail is warranted based on the crime, Giglio said.

This story is free to read thanks in part to the generous support of readers like you. Keep local news free. Become a member today.

Continue reading here:
Republican lawmakers sound an alarm on elimination of cash bail for most crimes in NY - RiverheadLOCAL

The two qualified for the race on Dec. 12.

Buckingham, who has been a building contractor since 1991, has served as assessor of property since August 2009. Thats when he was appointed by the County Commission to fill an unexpired term created by his predecessors sudden retirement.

He has been returned to the office three times, last winning re-election in August 2016 by defeating independent candidate Stanley Duane Shell with 64% of the vote.

Shell had previously worked in the assessors office as a deputy assessor.

Ford is a former Major League Baseball umpire who represented the 6th District in the state House of Representatives from 2007 until he was unseated by state Rep. Micah Van Huss, R-Jonesborough, in the 2012 GOP Primary.

He lost the Republican race for Washington County trustee by 81 votes to former County Commissioner Rick Storey in 2018.

The March 3 Republican Primary ballot forassessor of property will also include GOP races for constables in three districts, as well as for the partys presidential nominee. John E. Phillips in the 1st District, Rick Gilley Gillenwater in the 2nd District and John M. Daniel in the 3rd District are the only Republicans on the ballot for constable.

To vote in the primary, residents must register before Feb. 3. Early voting will begin Feb. 12 and end on Feb. 25..

Washington Countys Aug. 6 ballot will include the general election for assessor of property, constables and the District 2 seat on the countys Board of Education.

See more here:
Republicans to face off for Washington County assessor of property - Johnson City Press (subscription)

The difference between pygmy elephants and respectable Republicans is that the former's an endangered species that actually exists. The media loves to cover supposed "reasonable" Republicans but like sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, they just turn out to be large spineless eels.

Let's start with Mitt Romney because this is the one that caused Yr. Editrix to exclaim, "What a fucking asshole!" in the secret chat cave. Even now, Romney is considered the noble non-partisan who will rally Republicans to the side of removal during Donald Trump's impeachment trial. Meanwhile, Mittens couldn't bother to denounce Trump's repulsive racist attacks against Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib.

There are people -- some of whom are running for president -- naive enough to believe that Trump personally hijacked the GOP, and once he's gone, the party will return to all the "good" things they stood for during the good old days when Trump just appeared in Home Alone movies. Romney demonstrates what un-Trump-tainted Republicans actually believe. Congresswomen of color "have views that are not consistent" with the "experience" of a 72-year-old rich white guy. Republicans could "learn" from that different experience, but instead they just file them away in a binder full of communists.

Jeff Flake is another Republican who moderates desperately want to believe believes in something decent. He looks like a Republican from central casting, but he keeps telling us he's not a standup guy. He voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite credible sexual assault allegations against him, and as he recently boasted in a GQ article, he voted "34 times to repeal Obamacare." Nice guys don't keep an exact count of how many times they tried to deny poor people health care. This summer, Flake also defended Donald Trump from Jimmy Carter, choosing to morally equate the two men when only one of them has a human soul.

Carter isn't trying to "disqualify" Trump because he doesn't like Republicans. ("Can't we all just get along?") Trump disqualified himself when he cheated to win the election with Russia like a common Anna Karenina. Much like Anthony Weiner, Jeff Flake was presented at birth with a moral challenge to avoid living up to his Dickensian character name. He failed at every opportunity. Then he quit the Senate so he wouldn't have to do anything hard.

I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think Ted Cruz has a moral center inside his preening Tootsie Roll exterior. But they thought he at least wouldn't go out of his way to enable a president who repeatedly insulted his own wife. No such luck. Just this month, Cruz went on "Meet the Press" and spread debunked, lie-laced conspiracy theories about Ukraine.

Joe: Ted Cruz Is Choosing To Ignore US Intel Leaders | Morning Joe | MSNBCwww.youtube.com

None of that is true. Maybe a couple vowels are legit, but that's pushing things.

Marco Rubio likes to tweet random Bible verses during times of moral crisis. It's adorable that people think the spineless senator from Florida has ever struggled with his conscience. He usually just likes to complain that the media and the world at large has it out for poor, abused Republicans.

People wanted Trump removed before he was inaugurated because it was already evident he was a corrupt POS. Does Rubio think people shouldn't put out a fire because they insisted on having smoke alarms installed? We should ask his donors. They usually know what Little Marco thinks before he does.

The major upside from 2019, though, is that everyone has officially stopped listening to Susan Collins. We all know she's a fraud and a phony who'll perform a little soft shoe about bipartisanship and having an open mind before folding completely to Trump and Mitch McConnell. She rocked out the year by lecturing Chuck Schumer about Senate comity while ignoring that McConnell had gone on a "rigged impeachment trial" tour on Fox. Let's just focus on making her former Sen. Collins.

Follow Stephen Robinson on Twitter.

See you in an hour suckers. We love you.

See the article here:
2019: The Year Of Spineless Republicans - Wonkette

I swore to myself I wasnt going to write another letter to The Forum, because, whats the use? Its not going to change anybodys mind. But, no use waiting until Jan. 2 to break my resolution.

Some North Dakota Democrat has to speak up about President Trumps impeachment, so why not me?

Im a former state Democratic chair not claiming to speak for the party any longer.

But somebody has to answer the constant drumbeat of propaganda coming from Sens. Hoeven and Cramer, Rep. Armstrong and Gov. Burgum about Trumps impeachment, because otherwise voters will believe it.

First, Trump has been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives pursuant to the Constitution and precedent applied to the impeachment of only two other presidents in our history.

Second, Republicans in the Senate led by Mitch McConnell and supported by Hoeven and Cramer, are plainly violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and will do so again when they take the oath to essentially be impartial jurors in Trumps Senate trial because they have already declared Trump innocent.

And, finally, they are doing so despite substantial evidence Trump doesnt really care about the security of the country, standing up to our adversaries or supporting our allies if it doesnt benefit him and his family.

Read the rest here:
Letter: The propaganda drumbeat of the Republican Party - INFORUM