Joe Biden Falsely Claims Amy Coney Barrett ‘Said She Wants to Get Rid of the Affordable Care Act’
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden falsely claimed Monday that Supreme Court candidate Amy Coney Barrett "said she wanted to get rid of the Affordable Care Act" and said Americans would "lose their health insurance" in less than a month.
As the first day of Barrett's confirmatory hearings began before the Senate Judiciary Committee began, the former vice president, who spoke to reporters before boarding a flight to Ohio, used a question about the Supreme Court candidate to support his claim that Barrett was behind President to repeat again Obama's health law.
“This candidate said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act - this President wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Let's keep an eye on the ball. This is roughly less than a month that Americans will lose their health insurance, ”Biden said.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments against Obamacare on November 10th.
Much of the Democratic opposition to 48-year-old Notre Dame professor and former clerk to the late Justice Officer Antonin Scalia has been based on concerns that they may want the removal of the Affordable Care Act and the repeal or restriction of Roe v. Wade would support. Democrats have said that if Barrett were upheld in court, the health bill would be at stake, creating a conservative majority.
However, Biden's comments were a misrepresentation of Barrett's stance on the matter: although she criticized the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, who upheld the Health Act on the grounds that the individual mandate served as a tax rather than a penalty, she has no wish to eliminate the Health Act.
Your complaint, which does not focus on the law itself, but on the legal issue in the 2012 Obamacare case of the Supreme Court, NFIB v. Sebelius, came in 2017 in a book review entitled "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty".
"Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the law," she wrote. "He interpreted the penalty for people without health insurance as a tax that enabled him to uphold the law as a valid exercise of tax sovereignty."
She continued, "Had he treated the payment like the law - as a penalty - he should have voided the law as being outside the trading power of Congress."
Judge Antonin Scalia, who mentored Barrett, had argued that this was wrong for a number of reasons, including the fact that the law itself called the tax a penalty.
Barrett's paper appeared to take the side of her mentor, for whom she once worked as a court clerk: “To the extent that NFIB expresses a commitment to restraint against Sebelius by creatively interpreting apparently clear legal texts, his approach contradicts itself the legal textualism that most originalists subscribe to. Justice Scalia, for example, who criticized the construction of the Affordable Care Act by the majority in both NFIB against Sebelius and King against Burwell, protested that the statute known as Obamacare was renamed SCOTUScare in honor of the court's willingness to rewrite the statute should be to keep it afloat. "
The penalty imposed on uninsured persons has been removed by the Tax Reduction and Employment Act 2017.
In a 2015 interview with NPR, Barrett criticized the decision in King v. Burwell, another case related to the Affordable Care Act where the Court upheld the legality of the program's tax subsidies.
"It is clearly a good finding that these million Americans are not losing their tax subsidies," Barrett said, although she added, "the dissent has the better legal argument."
Barrett, known for her originalist and textualist view of the law, said Scalia had "incalculable influence" on her life and approach to the law, namely that the courts shouldn't make politics - a position that contradicts Biden's faces repeated claims that it is trying to eliminate Obamacare.
"His legal philosophy is also mine: a judge must apply the law as it is written," Barrett said of Scalia when President Trump announced her nomination. "Judges are not policy makers and they must be determined to overturn their political views."
More from National Review
The Democrats' frivolous tripartite attack on Judge Barrett
Barrett promises to interpret the constitution as it was written and says the courts should not try to make any policy
"We Can't Stop the Result": Dick Durbin Says Dems Can Slow The Supreme Court Reaching Out, But Not Stop It
You should check here to buy the best price guaranteed products.
CG: ATL@SF - 9/17/21
France recalls envoys from U.S. and Australia
CG: OAK@LAA - 9/17/21
A’s vs. Angels Highlights
My mom spends thousands shopping on Facebook, but doesn’t tell my father. I pay on credit and she repays me. Will the bank alert the IRS?
Big gap between Pfizer, Moderna vaccines seen for preventing COVID hospitalizations