Obama Judge Trolls Obamacare Opponents With Cheeky Pizza Analogy

[cal04]

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: TPM

An Obama-appointed judge swiped challengers of Obamacare subsidies in an opinion Tuesday upholding subsidies via the federal exchange. The lawsuit charged that the statute confines the subsidies to state-run exchanges.

Judge Andre M. Davis, confirmed by the Senate in 2009 by a vote of 72-16, sought to take down the challengers' claims with an amusing pizza analogy.

Here's the excerpt from his opinion in the 3-0 ruling for the law:

In fact, Appellants’ reading is not literal; it’s cramped. No case stands for the proposition that literal readings should take place in a vacuum, acontextually, and untethered from other parts of the operative text; indeed, the case law indicates the opposite. ... So does common sense: If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order. That is this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-judge-trolls-obamacare-opponents

---

http://www.scribd.com/doc/234783340/ACA-4th-Circuit-Ruling
ruling


Judge Harry Edwards Issues Blistering Dissent Slamming 'Nonsense' Obamacare Decision

(snip)
Writing the court's majority opinion, Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush (R), argued that the law’s insurance subsidies apply only to states that have created their own exchanges, thereby invalidating an IRS regulation permitting nationwide subsidies.

But Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter (D), sharply disagreed with the conservatives on the court.

"This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," Edwards wrote in his dissent Tuesday. "This claim is nonsense, made up out of whole cloth. There is no credible evidence in the record that Congress intended to condition subsidies on whether a State, as opposed to HHS, established the Exchange."

Edwards' full opinion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/judge-harry-edwards-obamacare-ruling_n_5609897.html

[Swede Atlanta]

1. Yes, it is a matter of judicial philosophy....

With regulations you can certainly look at the clear language which, in this case, disfavors subsidies for those purchasing on the federal exchange.

But you can also look at Congressional intent.

1. They wanted to subsidize premiums when people couldn't afford them to increase overall insurance coverage
2. They established a mechanism to allow Americans in states that didn't have their own exchanges to purchase on a federal exchange

Under intent it can be inferred that the technical limitation to state exchanges is just that, a technical limitation but not related to Congressional intent.

We'll have to see how the various Circuits and ultimate the SCOTUS approach this issue.

[groundloop]

6. I certainly hope the Supreme Court has as much common sense

I think the Pizza Hut / Domino's analogy is brilliant and sums up this case perfectly. Bottom line is that right wingers will do anything they can to hurt/embarrass/impede President Obama and don't care if they deny millions of Americans a shot at decent health care to do it.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Go to the store for a loaf of bread. And if they have eggs, bring a dozen

The above does not mean bring back a dozen loaves of bread.

Yet that's how the opponents of ACA are trying to misinterpret the law.

[DemoTex]

14. From 7th Grade English:

The blacksmith told his new apprentice, "I am going to take this red hot horseshoe from the fire and place it on the anvil. When I nod my head, hit it with the hammer."

Unless the apprentice was a total MORAN, the horseshoe got hit with the hammer.

[freshwest]

20. But we are dealing with Morans here...

Excellent analogy, BTW!

[mikekohr]

21. Morans! my favorite!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6aIbjCZOPI/AAAAAAAAADo/JuI81owffJw/s1600/moran+%236.jpg?


http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/exercises-in-ignorance.html

[freshwest]

22. The original Moran!

[IronLionZion]

3. They know

they just don't care.

They will jump through hoops and cut off the noses of their own constituents to spite Obama.

As if it wasn't bad enough that only liberal states set up exchanges, but they want only those liberal states to get the subsidies too? Do they really ever think these things through? Who do they think they are screwing?

[George II]

4. Ham on pizza? YUCK!

[groundloop]

5. How about Canadian bacon?

[TwilightGardener]

9. Ham, pineapple, barbecue sauce/chicken, taco seasonings...

Totally gross as toppings. None of it belongs on pizza. If you want the taste of those foods, have a luau, a barbecue, or go to Mexican restaurant. Sheesh.

[elleng]

11. 'Unconstitutional!'

[Cha]

18. I know.. that whole kind of pizza it was.. kinda grossed me out. lol

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Why does this sound like Judge Davis is taking a dig at Justice Scalia?

and the other four members of the Supreme Shysters?

No case stands for the proposition that literal readings should take place in a vacuum, acontextually, and untethered from other parts of the operative text; indeed, the case law indicates the opposite.

[elleng]

12. Didn't occur to me,

possible, but in any event, a GOOD approach.

[joshcryer]

16. Oh man, it is, it really is.

This is precisely how they interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in "Uterus United." Ginsburg made it absolutely clear that nothing in the legislative history of the RFRA indicated it to be interpreted with corporate personhood.

[SunSeeker]

8. Excellent analysis by an excellent judge.

All the more reason to vote Dem to get more jurists like Andre Davis.

[perdita9]

10. Looking forward to reading legal analysis on this ruling

I'm not a lawyer. Frankly, most of the recent rulings seem to have no basis in the law or historical fact -- they're just reflections of the judge's political opinions.

It doesn't give me a lot of respect for our justice system.

[greiner3]

13. "...most of the recent rulings seem to have no basis in the law or historical fact -- "

I'm sure you would then agree that rulings such the Citizens United case that grants MORE human rights to corporations would also fit into your 'activist judges' thoughts.

[Xipe Totec]

15. the majority misapplies the applicable standard of review,

refuses to give deference to the IRS’s and HHS’s permissible constructions of the ACA, and issues a judgment that portends disastrous consequences. I therefore dissent.

Bravo!

[Cha]

17. Yay.. love it! thanks cal~ Got it?! Pizza!

[S_B_Jackson]

19. The pizza analogy of Sr. Judge Andre Davis is incorrect

Instead, I would say that a more proper analogy would be to consider a law firm who is presented a rather sizable bill from a vendor. The attorney decides to pay the invoice from a client's escrow account instead of the firm's trade accounts. When later challenged, the law firm maintains that they had the funds in their trade accounts - so it really doesn't make any difference as to which account was used. It's all the difference between paying money from out of your left pants pocket vs. your right pants pockets. It simply doesn'tm make any difference.......

I wonder, if such a case were presented would Judge Davis be equally as glib?