No one lectures the United States Supreme Court quite like the New York Times. Their penchant for talking down to (face it) the conservative members of the court has transcended numerous personnel changes at the paper. And when it comes to the issues that define the twilight of modern liberalism, the Times does not obsess (as other, lesser news organizations might) about the distinction between news and opinion pages
A recent article by Robert Pear in the Politics section provides a priceless example. TheTimes recognizes, of course, that Obamacare represents the high water mark of statist ideology in the past 100 years of the U.S. Congress and that, should the law be forced back to Capitol Hill for repair of one sort or another, it has no chance at survival. As I have written elsewhere, the liberal cognoscenti view their task as pushing forward the great ratchet of history to lift us, the barbarians, out of chaos and onto the plateau of utopia.
Nothing is more agonizing to them than to see the ratchet slip a hard-won notch.
So the Times does what is necessary to inform the Court of how and why the correct decision in King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to Obamacare, is to preserve the law untouched.
In this case, as most everyone knows by now, the challenge to the law is actually directed at the IRS and their policy of providing subsidies to purchasers of health insurance in states where the government has decided not to set up an insurance exchange (leaving the task to the feds). As presented in Reason Magazine:
Via: RicochetOne section of the Affordable Care Act stipulates that insurance subsidies shall be provided in any exchange “established by the State.” Federal exchanges are not established by the state. Therefore, the federal government cannot subsidize policies bought on exchanges in the two-thirds of states that did not set up their own exchange. Washington has been doing just that up to now, thanks to the IRS’ contested interpretation of the law.
Continue Reading....
