“The Law is a ass”
“It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.
That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”
If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.” (Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist“)
If Charles Dickens were around today and saw the United States Supreme Court in action, he’d feel very much validated.
And if he were watching the arguments of “King V. Burwell” and the ensuing deliberations and eventual ruling, even Mr. Dickens might be shocked at how much of “a ass” the law can be as practiced by some of the “great jurists” of our time.
All of the attentive world is fully aware of the case and the issue:
“Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The underlying facts of the case reveal the real issue: The law as written clearly states that the Executive branch (IRS) cannot give tax-credit subsidies to Affordable Care Act enrollees in states which do not have state exchanges. Jonathan Gruber the “architect” of the Affordable Care Act, much to the chagrin of the HHS, has even confirmed that fact and given the rationale for its inclusion in the language of the act.
The Court knows this. They are willing, however, to give the pretense of thoughtfully considering whether the actions of the IRS should be upheld because they are claiming long after the fact that they really didn’t mean what the law actually says.
Thus, to make it simple and clearly stated as Mr. Bumble would say it: The Court is considering if it should, while recognizing the IRS has clearly violated the law as stated, its actions should be upheld, because if their illegal actions were not allowed to stand, there would be so much calamity with citizens being denied the subsidies they were not entitled to by law in the first place.
Uh. let’s see. How does that make the “law” look? I think Mr. Bumble had it right!
Even “Fifty Thousand Watts Phil” can’t make his usual “Bush bad, Cheney evil, you bircherzzzz” fit this one. DLH
