Constitutional Law, Courts, Media, Society, Supreme Court

Obamacare Spared Through “Jiggery-Pokery”?

scaliaSupreme CourtI 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.

238 thoughts on “Obamacare Spared Through “Jiggery-Pokery”?”

  1. @Nick Spinelli
    ~~ Thank you and smart enough not to fall for that “nowhere” bait of “Educate yourself before spouting ignorant comments regarding biology.” Her put downs will never shut down facts. Liberals always name call demean to shut down those who have differing opinions than theirs.

    I’m not going to spend my time looking something up I don’t care about but don’t shove it in my face, as a fact of science, where no scientific facts exist that people are born gay or lesbian. That would mean 2 things: that science is wrong or God is imperfect.

    They can’t debate facts and instead, resort to elementary grade school name calling. Her words so appropriately spoken by a predictable Democrat. lol

  2. “Lisa you can spout any uneducated nonsense you want…”

    Lisa,
    Trust her on this one, she is as experience as anyone on this blog.

    1. From the abstract of the article previously cited: “Although a role for hormones during early development has been established, it also appears that there may be multiple pathways to a given sexual orientation outcome and some of these pathways may not involve hormones.”

      Perhaps you should read a little more carefully.

      As I mentioned previously there is a huge scientific difference between claiming 1) that one factor (eg nature) plays a role and 2) claiming that no other factors play a role.

      The abstract for the article cited makes clear there may be other factors involved. So far as I can tell the study did not even try to identify other potential factors let alone attempt to eliminate them from playing a role in homosexuality.

      1. BFM, I didn’t say that there were no other factors involved. I disputed Lisa’s claim that the only factor was “conditioning”.

        1. ” It’s sheer ignorance of all things biological for anyone to attribute homosexuality on life style or choice or conditioning.”

          It sure sounded to me like you were using a broad brush for claiming there are no other factors aside from nature involved with homosexuality.

          Thanks for the clarification that you agree the role of other factors, aside from nature, in the development of homosexuality is an open scientific question.

  6. Lisa, You’re being lectured to, and instructed to do homework, by an LPN. Just so you know. You seem a lot smarter and certainly more educated.

  7. Lisa you can spout any uneducated nonsense you want, but I get to tell you it’s based on sheer ignorance of biology. That’s how the First Amendment works.

  9. Lisa, again. Please go do some research on embryonic/ fetal development, maternal hormone’s effect on developing fetal brain. Look up epigenetics.

  11. “Explain the phenomenon of ambiguous genitalia and hermaphroditism”

    ~~ People born with both sex organs doesn’t mean they have a different chromosome make up. Their DNA will be one way or another. They still have not scientifically proven that xx born with male genitals are lesbian or that xy born with female genitals is gay. And by your account if xx + xy = xxxy then how come all gays and lesbians chromosomes are not xxxy. This study also claims that strict definitions of sexual nature are socially constructed

    “Educate yourself before spouting ignorant comments regarding biology.”

    ~~ I can spout about whatever I want. Educate yourself on the 1st amendment!!!

    http://www.bioethics.msu.edu/images/stories/file/MHR/mhr_19_1.pdf

  12. DBQ, LOL! I suggest people, even if they aren’t from the south or particular fans of the Confederate flag[that would be me], go to liberal bakers and order cakes w/ the Confederate flag as a decoration.

  13. I tend to look @ the personal stories. History is not wars, battles,, etc. It is the personal stories of people that shape world events. Some historical decisions, not just this week, but in the recent past, have been decided by 9 people, all from the northeast, all Ivy League educated, 9 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews. This is the antithesis of diversity.

  15. Nobody knows for certain why some people are homosexual or heterosexual. There have been studies about the amounts of hormones in utero that the fetus is exposed to, stress the mother may be going through…or not, foods, chemicals, genetics. Are people one gender orientation or the other…..or is it a sliding scale? No one knows. The nature versus nurture arguments, not just in homosexuality but other aspects of human behavior, have been going on forever. There is still not any definitive proof of either, so you are all just jerking your puds over this.

    The scientific jury is out on this and it is pointless to argue one way or the other. WHO CARES. Evidently you are what you want to be or think you are. Just ask Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner or Rachel Dolezal. If you are born homosexual or if you learn to be homosexual is not known.

    Are people natural born killers or is it a learned behavior? Do we have any free will or are we helpless before our genetics?

    Whatever. You still can’t make me bake you a cake. Or if you do…..you won’t like it 😀

    http://i.imgur.com/siLf6Wu.jpg

  16. No one said homosexuality was genetic. I suppose some are not aware of embryonic/ fetal development. It is simplistic beyond reason to assume that there are not variables in the sexes and sexual identity. Explain the phenomenon of ambiguous genitalia and hermadophritism. Explain every step of the development of the fetus and at what stage of development sexual identity is imprinted on the developing brain. Educate yourself before spouting ignorant comments regarding biology.

    1. ” Educate yourself before spouting ignorant comments regarding biology.”

      There are two very different statements being asserted here. The first has to do with the role of nature in homosexuality. We have some scientific evidence for that.

      The second statement has to do with the claim there are no other factors involved with homosexuality. Aside from actually testing many (probably thousands) of other factors one by one, I don’t see how this second statement could even be formed as a testable hypothesis.

      I think the only possible conclusion is that at this time the role of other factors in homosexual behavior is an open scientific question. Considering our current state of knowledge, the second statement is more about politics than science. Or perhaps some reader can suggest a study that conclusively demonstrates that no other factors (aside from nature) play any role in homosexuality. I would really like to see that study – but I don’t think so.

  17. Beldar

    It was the original intent of the original framers of the original Constitution and then the first ten Amendments to have slavery in some states.

    Which is why it took a constitutional amendment to free slaves.

  20. Presicely, Old Nurse. It’s sheer ignorance of all things biological for anyone to attribute homosexuality on life style or choice or conditioning.

Comments are closed.