Court Packing Works Out Well for Obama
Today a three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that subsidies to assist individuals in purchasing healthcare, if they qualify based on their income, are only intended to be dispersed to individuals who purchase a plan on an exchange that was created by their state. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled today that the subsidies were intended for individuals on a state or federally created exchange. Same issue – two different rulings could place this on the docket of the US Supreme Court next term or it could be heard before the entire DC Circuit Court where the decision would probably be the exact opposite of that handed down today by that court’s panel. Why? It’s called court packing and even Senator Harry Reid finally acknowledged his “nuclear option” from last fall was intended to do just that.
Remember this? On June 4, 2013, President Obama called a press conference at the White House and announced that he was not packing the second highest court in the country with hacks. Specifically, he recognized the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as the “Second Highest Court in the Country;” he then attempted to assure Americans that he was not “court packing,” and finally he made it clear that his three hand-picked nominees “are no hacks.”
Perhaps Harry Reid should have gone back and re-read the President’s statement from that press conference before confessing yesterday that the purpose of the nuclear option was to pack the courts with Obama’s radical nominees.
However back in 2005, Senator Barack Obama objected to the use of the “nuclear option:”
“I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.
What they (the voters) do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.
The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this Chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.”