Harry Reid's Disingenuous Comments On The DC Court's Ruling On ObamaCare Subsidies

After two separate, but equal, federal courts ruled at odds with each other over the expansion of the ObamaCare subsidies to include those states that refused to establish their own exchanges, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt obliged to go to the microphones and admonish the DC court which had just ruled against the expansion.   Reid, arguing that the DC ruling was a partisan effort by two "activist" Republican judges, seemed to be blind to the fact that one could argue that the very same activism took place in the Virginia court where 3 Democrat Judges (Davis, Gregory, and Thacker) unanimously sided with the Obama Administration over the expansion of subsidies.

Reid also continued his admonishment by declaring that ObamaCare was lawfully passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.  However, what he is completely ignoring is the fact that the the constitutionality or the legality of the ObamaCare law was never at issue in those two court rulings.  What is at issue is whether or not the IRS had the right to re-write the law and, thereby, expand subsidies to those 36 states who elected not to provide their own exchanges.  Section 36b of ObamaCare clearly mandates that, in order to receive a subsidy, you must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311.”  The words "established by the State" obviously doesn't imply any exchange established by the Federal government like "healthcare.gov".  Otherwise, why even be so specific by using such wording?  And the reason for the IRS re-write is simple.  Too many states had refused to set up their own exchanges; leaving millions of the enrolled ineligible for subsidies.  In fact, only 14 actually did create their own exchanges. So, the Obama Administration knew the law would die on its own if millions avoided signing up for healthcare without those subsidies. Once again, it is the lawlessness of the Obama Administration that is really at issue here. 

Sadly, these opposing decisions by our courts does expose political activism in our judicial system.  If there wasn't, at least one of the 4 Democrat judges involved in these two decisions crossed party lines and would have ruled differently in what is an obvious wording intent of the law.  And, that activism is the very reason that Reid went "nuclear" in the Senate; thus, allowing federal judges and other political candidates to be appointed with a simple majority and not the previously required two-thirds vote.  This way Harry, with a majority control of the Senate, could load up our legal system with as many far-left, activist justices as he and the President could see fit. So, if Reid wants to make claims of political activism in our courts, he need only look in a mirror.

References:

Video: Harry Reid Admonishes DC Court Decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMsOvOgxzoA

The statutory text of Obamacare and the Halbig and King cases: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_econ/2014/07/the-statutory-text-of-obamacare-and-the-halbig-and-king-cases.html

U.S. Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions On Obamacare Subsidies: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/22/334034284/u-s-appeals-court-deals-blow-to-obamas-health-law

Judge Andre M. Davis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_M._Davis

Judge Roger L. Gregory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Gregory

Judge Stephanie Thacker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Thacker

Upholding ObamaCare—as Written An appeals court's remedial civics lesson: Laws mean what they say: http://online.wsj.com/articles/upholding-obamacareas-written-1406070280

Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html

Senate Nuclear Option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option