Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., a critic of the trade legislation, offered a blistering critique: "He's ignored Congress and disrespected Congress for years and then he shows up at the baseball game with homemade beer, and then comes to the caucus and lectures us for 40 minutes about his values and whether or not we're being honest by using legislative tactics to try and stop something which we believe is a horrible mistake for the United States of America and questions our integrity."Which is from an AP story by James Kuhnhenn, not Fox News. Though Mr. Kuhnhenn cuts Barack Obama a little slack on the King v. Burwell case pending in the Supreme Court, by withholding a little context;
At issue in the health care case before the Supreme Court case is whether Congress authorized federal subsidy payments for health care coverage regardless of where people live, or only for residents of states that created their own insurance marketplaces. Nearly 6.4 million low- and moderate-income people could lose coverage if the court rules those enrolled through the federal site aren't eligible for the subsidies.Forgetting that there's the little matter of the taxes to pay for the subsidies, which are clearly authorized only in states where there have been exchanges created by the state. Then the former law school professor gets a free logical fallacy, in response;
Obama says the 5-year-old law is well established and that the case against it is so flimsy that the court should not even have considered it.Then maybe Congress should have passed a different law than the one they did. Because, as Michael Cannon points out, the one they passed and Obama signed does not authorize taxes and subsidies outside the state created exchanges. And Obama's oath of office requires him to see that that law is faithfully executed.
"This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another," he said this past week.