tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post7894209413859687792..comments2024-03-28T16:58:17.705-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Not getting hung up on wordsGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-2259924350170305772015-03-02T13:02:15.821-05:002015-03-02T13:02:15.821-05:00Love the "nothing." I have to remember t...Love the "nothing." I have to remember that.<br />It frustrates me no end that the common default alternative seems to be to look for another government program to replace Obamacare.<br />It used to be that folks paid for medical & dental care from personal funds, and were insured for "major medical." (Of course, that also was back pre-tax reform ~'86, when medical expenses were fully deductible on one's Form 1040.)Murphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11865623200954289332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-26861910719916916312015-02-28T15:44:20.979-05:002015-02-28T15:44:20.979-05:00Tough to find a tax in this one.
Still, a valid c...Tough to find a tax in this one.<br /><br />Still, a valid concern. I'm encouraged, though, to hear Justice Kagan say in an earlier ruling this week that it was on Congress to write law; the courts could only apply what was written. <br /><br /><i><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/02/25/supreme-court-throws-prosecutors-overboard-in-fisherman-case/" rel="nofollow"> [W]hatever</a> the wisdom or folly of [the Sarbanes-Oxley provision], this Court does not get to rewrite the law. If judges disagree with Congress’s choice, we are perfectly entitled to say so—in lectures, in law review articles, and even in dicta. But we are not entitled to replace the statute Congress enacted with an alternative of our own design.</i><br /><br />Maybe she's learning.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-11817420126089603302015-02-27T23:06:01.001-05:002015-02-27T23:06:01.001-05:00It's the sort of argument that would make me f...It's the sort of argument that would make me feel complete confidence if I were unaware of the majority opinion in the last O-care case. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-75932848937338387192015-02-27T15:55:00.383-05:002015-02-27T15:55:00.383-05:00...earlier considered by the Congress but was not ...<i>...earlier considered by the Congress but was not adopted in the subsequently enacted final version....</i><br /><br />That distorts what actually happened. My counter-distortion:<br /><br /><i>...earlier considered by the Congress but was </i>explicitly excluded<i> in the subsequently enacted final version....</i><br /><br />Of course, Congress' statutory language is what Congress intended to say. And so has said the Supreme on a number of occasions.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-41489640889500496472015-02-27T11:27:54.530-05:002015-02-27T11:27:54.530-05:00"We'd replace it with the same thing we r... "We'd replace it with the same thing we replaced slavery with: nothing."<br /><br />Priceless :)Cassnoreply@blogger.com