It Was Lunacy Time At the Fifth Circuit Today

It was nice while it lasted.Arne Dedert/DPA via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

As you know, Obamacare is in court yet again. This time the argument is that when Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero, they made the mandate unconstitutional. And if the mandate goes, then the whole law has to go.

This is bedbug crazy, but Republicans managed to shop the case into the courtroom of a hard-right loon who totally agreed that Obamacare had to be deep sixed. Now it’s on appeal, and today a panel of the 5th Circuit Court heard oral arguments. Aside from the overall lunacy of the whole thing, there are two items worth highlighting. The first is, yet again, the question of whether anyone has standing to appeal the district court ruling in the first place:

The appeals panel also spent a good chunk of the allotted 90 minutes asking questions on a third topic: whether the Democratic states and House of Representatives even have standing to appeal Judge O’Connor’s ruling….If the appeals court ultimately decides that neither the House nor the intervening Democratic states have standing, it could either let Judge O’Connor’s ruling stand or vacate it. In any event, the losing party will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court.

Just imagine the following scenario:

  • Congress passes a law.
  • A future president doesn’t like it, so he refuses to defend it in court.
  • A crackpot district judge then declares the law unconstitutional. This affects the entire country.
  • There is no appeal. Finis.

There is surely no one in the country who thinks this even remotely resembles how things are supposed to work. And yet the 5th Circuit is seriously mulling the possibility that this would be good law.

The second item to highlight is the attitude of the Republican judges toward congressional intent. Here is one of them engaging in some mind reading:

Appellate Judge Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, on Tuesday posited that lawmakers — who failed to agree on an Obamacare replacement plan two years ago — deliberately eliminated the mandate penalty because they knew the rest of the law would have to fall. She said perhaps lawmakers thought, “Aha, this is the silver bullet that’s going to undo Obamacare.”

This is just straight-up Republican Party advocacy. There is, obviously, no question that Republicans would have repealed all of Obamacare if they could have. But they couldn’t. And the reason they couldn’t was because they didn’t have the votes.¹ It had nothing to do with what they thought, and even if it did, no court has any business trying to divine Congress’s hidden and unstated desires.

Republicans squawk endlessly about “judicial activism” and the depredations of the liberal 9th Circuit. But what we heard today goes light years beyond anything the 9th Circuit has ever considered. If the 5th Circuit actually follows through on any of this stuff it would be little different from simply appointing themselves a separate legislature with the power to overturn any laws they didn’t like. And I’ll bet that not a single “constitutional conservative” will so much as mutter under their breath about this.

¹Quick refresher for those who don’t remember what happened. Republicans wanted to repeal Obamacare but they needed 60 votes to do it. They didn’t have 60 votes, so they could only do a limited amount under reconciliation rules. Those rules allow fiscal legislation to pass with 51 votes as long as it doesn’t increase the budget deficit. The CBO ruled that eliminating the mandate penalty would cost some money, but it would save even more because lots of people would drop out of Obamacare and thus wouldn’t have to be subsidized. That’s what made it OK to eliminate the mandate penalty. And aside from their dislike of the mandate, the real reason Republicans repealed it is because the CBO’s analysis opened up some budget room for other stuff Republicans also wanted to do.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate