I spent most of the day opining in front of the Supreme Court and in studies on the 6-3 ruling in favor of the Obama Administration in King v. Burwell. I will not subject you to more of that analysis. I have previously indicated that I found the opposing view of the Halbig decision against the Administration to be compelling, though I have always viewed this to be a difficult question upon which people of good-faith could disagree. Yet, in both my prior congressional testimony and my columns, I have never accused the Administration of “jiggery-pokery” — largely because I was not sure what jiggery-pokery is. However, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has written a stinging dissent to King that contains the memorable accusation that the majority was engaging in “interpretive jiggery-pokery.”
Quite fittingly given his prior decision harkening back to the original intent of the Framers, the term originates in the eighteenth century and means a dishonest manipulation or twisting like what we would call a flim-flam today. It can be traced to the Scottish word jouk, meaning to skillfully twist one’s body to avoid a blow like a boxer or fencer. Joukery became a term for underhanded dealing or trickery which led to the association with the word Pawky (from the word pawk or trick) Thus, by the seventeenth century, the first combination of joukery-pawkery were heard and it came into vogue in the 18th Century . . . and now again in the 21st Century.
Reblogged this on pundit from another planet.
We are truly living in interesting times. There are no more absolutes, thanks to identity theft even death is not death. I truly feel sorry for all those that honorably sacrificed their lives in defense of our constitution. I can take solace in the fact that the only thing the progressives will be able to destroy are just things. Our founding principles will live for eternity and eventually we will get back to them…one way or another.
I want to give a big shout out to all the attorneys out there. You remind me of Bill Cosby when he told Theo “I brought you into this world and I can take you out”. That will be on this republics tombstone. Nicely done!
@AnneMarieDickey
LOL!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
isaac,
Really hope you are right, brother. We are so far behind the rest of the world in our healthcare. So tragic. It would be great to see some honest-to-goodness healthcare economists and those who study the successful models from other countries get together and develop Medicare and Medicaid for all.
Have you ever noticed that when big pharma is “threatened” with negotiated prices they talk about how they will have to cut research? They never talk about how they’re going to have to cut marketing…
I. Annie,
Amen sister. Medicare for all!
I have to admit…I am truly reveling in the weeping, rage and gnashing of teeth in here today. Your apocalyptic doom of civilization is my blue sky sunny day! 😀
Mike A wrote,
“It does not presage the end of the Republic, the death of freedom or the abolition of capitalism.”
Quite right – those things happened at the very least 6 to 7 years ago. Oh -and take this to heart – based on realizing that obvious fact, both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck predicted this outcome too (if not the exact details) months ago. Some solace: at least you’re in good company. BTW guess what they’ve been predicting for the upcoming ruling on SS marriage….hmm now if only I could get those predictive skills to translate at the track…
Nick declares: “This is the most trolled thread in a long time.”
What are you talking about, that was only your third post on this thread.
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
I’m hoping this opens the door to Medicare for All. It’s the next step. And way past time.
The problem here isn’t necessarily that SCOTUS interpretted the law in any particular way, it’s that SCOTUS ruled that the executive branch is free to interpret and execute the law however it wants, however contradictory that may be to the plain language of the statute.
What it means is that the law means whatever the executive wants it to mean and there’s no check on his power. No one is bound or constrained by anything but pure power politics. That’s banana republic Venezuela type stuff.
phillyT
I think the Republicans are the most relieved that this nonsense was stopped. They have had nothing, still have nothing, and don’t look like they will ever have anything to improve on this cesspool of a health care insurance situation. Now that the ACA is out of the woods, the focus can be turned to the real culprits, the private sector health care insurance parasites. Regardless of its faults, ACA has taken us out of their absolute grasp and left them as the obvious cost to be curtailed. The next move will be to create a two tier system using a version of medicaid/medicare to offer a base system affordable to all with the opportunity to pay more for more. Once the base system is taken out of the private parasitical system basic health care insurance can be fine tuned to the demands of the majority. Then the focus can be on the waste and other nonsense in the health care system such as hospitals over charging, redundant services, fraud, pharmaceutical advertising, etc.
The US is in deep horse apples as well as human sh*t for having waited so long. The journey to the surface and fresh air will take a number of pushes upward.
Just watch. The cons will start referring to this as the Affordable Care Act instead of Obamacare. Since it looks like it will be around for a while, they’ll want to erase his name from the effort. It has been fun watching them foam at the mouth all day.
Good bye, Rule of Law … we hardly knew you. You had a good run, but of course the mob always wins in the end.
This is the most trolled thread in a long time.
MikeA, Can you transfer those superb prediction skills @ the track? Good job.
Justice Scalia, so famous for not doing Constitutional interpretation, unless he does. Because no Republicans would work on this healthcare plan, even though it was their idea in almost every way, the Dems had to make concessions to the mega insurance and pharmaceutical industries or the bill would have been clobbered.
I’m mostly curious now to see whether even one Republican candidate will come up with a single, long-promised plan to replace the ACA under the “repeal and replace” mantra they’ve been squawking forever.
@MiKeA
You did a very good job predicting the outcome! Kudos!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic.
Those that perversely interpret the Constitution where ever possible and adapt it to their own agenda whether it be to support arming to the teeth or going backward to the draconian health care insurance system that should stay in the past in shame have been dealt a long awaited and appropriate blow.
Now, to take this dog’s breakfast, an improvement but a dog’s breakfast never the less, and move in the direction of all the other sane societies from which the US simply must observe and understand, is the next move.
Who knows maybe the court will side with Hillary and start requiring background checks on every gun transaction as well as owner. There is nothing in the Constitution’s second amendment that applies to the insane, unstable, and criminal. Once there are structures in place to prohibit access to guns for the insane, unstable, and criminal then there can be an intelligent conversation.
The wording that the right wing nuts used in an attempt to put America backwards was nothing more than a lame a** attempt at punishing Americans for voting for Obama. Dam, this has got to sting.
Thanks Mike Appleton,
My comments above were meant to show that words do mean something, especially the definition of the State.