{"id":213584,"date":"2016-05-13T16:52:33","date_gmt":"2016-05-13T20:52:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/172.24.32.11\/daily\/2016\/05\/13\/another_judge_rules_another_part_of_obamacare_unconstitutional_again\/"},"modified":"2017-07-07T11:17:51","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T15:17:51","slug":"another_judge_rules_another_part_of_obamacare_unconstitutional_again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2016\/05\/13\/another_judge_rules_another_part_of_obamacare_unconstitutional_again\/","title":{"rendered":"Another Judge Rules Another Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional — Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH:\u00a0 Obama lost a court case… Well, he lost a ruling in an ongoing court case over the constitutionality of how Obamacare is being funded, and it turns out that a judge properly ruled that it\u2019s unconstitutional.\u00a0 You know, in every court except the Supreme Court, Obamacare has taken a lot of constitutional hits because so much of it is unconstitutional. But it\u2019s never ultimately ruled that way. It just adds up to people losing faith in yet another institution.\u00a0 And of course, the judiciary was never intended to have this kind of power in the political world in the first place.<\/p>\n

More on that as the program unfolds.<\/p>\n

The LA Times has the story.\u00a0 “House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the [Regime] was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.” Now, what this made… The short version of the story is Obama comes up with the employee mandate that everybody has to buy insurance, and the reason for this is they want young people who will never make claims being forced to buy it.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s on paper. That\u2019s how they were gonna pay for actual health care for seasoned citizens and the catastrophically injured or sick.\u00a0 Well, a lot of young people are not buying.\u00a0 They\u2019re paying the fines.\u00a0 The money has fallen way short, as it was always going to.\u00a0 There isn\u2019t enough money.\u00a0 We don\u2019t have any money anyway.\u00a0 We\u2019re $19 trillion in debt.\u00a0 But there was never enough money — either appropriated or available — to fund all of these various aspects of Obamacare.\u00a0 So what did Obama do?<\/p>\n

He just went in, essentially by executive order, and said that we\u2019re going to subsidize insurance companies who are losing money in order to keep them on board with Obamacare.\u00a0 And that was the unconstitution.\u00a0 You can\u2019t spend money without Congress authorizing it.\u00a0 Obama didn\u2019t wait around for that \u2019cause he knew he would lose.\u00a0 So they just essentially went to the Treasury and started writing checks, whatever it took to subsidize insurers.\u00a0 The Regime was unconstitutionally spending money to substitute subsidize health insurers without getting an appropriation from Congress.<\/p>\n

“Last year, US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing” Obamacare.\u00a0 You notice something here?\u00a0 This is classic LA Times.\u00a0 A little media example here.\u00a0 “Last year, US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president…” This is designed to gin up anti-Republican sentiment.<\/p>\n

These evil Republicans, they denied Obama the money — and this cockamamie judge went along with it!\u00a0 That\u2019s the way the reader, according to the LA Times, is supposed to interpret this: “The GOP-controlled House.” Then yesterday the same judge “ruled the [Regime] is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans. The judge\u2019s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and,” as is the case with everything with Obama, “stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal. …<\/p>\n

<\/a>“House Speaker Paul Ryan called the ruling ‘a historic win for the Constitution and the American people. The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people\u2019s representatives.'” Flat-out, how can this thing be overturned on appeal?\u00a0 It can\u2019t be, legally.\u00a0 Somebody\u2019s gotta go outside the Constitution to do it.\u00a0 See, this is… Remember the explanation a couple of weeks ago about what the MacGuffin is in a book or a movie?<\/a>\u00a0 It\u2019s a technique.<\/p>\n

A MacGuffin is what the hero in a book wants, or a movie. Any story, it\u2019s what the hero wants.\u00a0 And, of course, there are villains trying to deny the hero, or trying to get also for themselves what the hero wants.\u00a0 And what it leads you to is the media never getting down deep, digging down deep to report what actually, say, the details of Obamacare are.\u00a0 They just cover the story, “Will Obama win? Will Obama get Obamacare passed? Will Obama beat this judge? Will Obama succeed in overturning the court ruling?”<\/p>\n

They don\u2019t spend any time at all telling you why Obamacare\u2019s a disaster. They don\u2019t get into any detail explaining why this is a slam-dunk court ruling because the Regime cannot do what they did.\u00a0 And so overturn it on appeal means they\u2019re gonna have to find an Obama-friendly judge or appellate court, which is entirely possible. But if this is overturned, the law is not a factor.\u00a0 Politics is.\u00a0 And once again, the judiciary finds itself as the final arbiter in political matters, which was something never envisioned by the founders.<\/p>\n