Twitter | Search | |
Tim Hulsey
Theater geek, cinephile, former blogger, tourist in the realms of gold.
4,672
Tweets
9
Following
19
Followers
Tweets
Tim Hulsey 2h
The problem is not what was done, but how it was done: The business of rewriting legislation belongs to Congress, not to the Supreme Court. 2/2
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 3h
You presume a great deal about what I like & what I dislike. I dislike fiscal catastrophes, & to the extent that the King v. Burwell ruling was designed to avert a fiscal catastrophe among the states, I should like the ruling a good deal more than I do. 1/2
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 3h
People can misread it, as you do, but the amendment is quite clearly worded. The main clause is unmistakable, & the subordinate clause in no way qualifies it. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to define rights afforded to individuals without qualifications.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 3h
Madison's intent was quite clear when he penned the phrase, "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed." You may pretend that its meaning is unclear, but you cannot do so by referring to the text.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 3h
Because the 1st Amendment concerns the individual right to free expression, & the 2nd concerns the individual right to bear arms.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 3h
Neither has Biden.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 3h
Replying to @amconmag @Nick_Hankoff
George Washington still holds the title of Father of Our Country.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 20h
The 1st Amendment mentions "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 2nd Amendment mentions "the right of the people to keep & bear arms." Both rights are defined in the same manner as rights of individuals.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 20h
Scalia was quite correct in the Heller ruling (nor did he turn a subordinate clause into the main clause, as gun-control advocates have done): Everywhere in the Constitution where the phrase "the people" occurs, it means _individuals_. 1/2
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 20h
An originalist would say that the business of passing new legislation belongs to Congress, not the courts. 2/2
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 20h
That's a nice story, but it doesn't change the fact that in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled against the text & intent of the law, changing the law to prevent it from creating a fiscal catastrophe for state governments. 1/2
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 20h
But in King v. Burwell, the Court ruled, quite against the text of the act, that the ACA granted federal subsidies to states that did not expand Medicaid. This was done because when the subsidies kicked in, the ACA as written was about to become a very unpopular bill.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey 20h
The Supreme Court (or rather, five justices on the Court) _literally_ rewrote the ACA in King v. Burwell. The ACA as originally written expressly prohibited the federal government from giving subsidies to states that did not expand Medicaid. 1/2
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
The context is that, by destroying the oil & gas industry, Biden will also destroy the other jobs & business sectors that rely on products from the oil & gas industry.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
They cut off his mike.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
Replying to @Neoavatara
"Needs context"
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
Replying to @hulsey_ryan
Also, why the disconnect btwn the article and the photo? Is the paper trying to ensure that potential Biden supporters never read the piece?
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
let me introduce u to my guy
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
He wasn't radical, but he was a pretty hardline liberal who seemed to take particular delight in baiting conservatives & ignoring Congress's role in the legislative process. (His administration also abused federal power to crack down on political opponents, which didn't help.)
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Hulsey Oct 22
Two major examples involving the ACA have been NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) & _especially_ King v. Burwell (2015). The ruling in King v. Burwell involving federal subsidies for states that didn't approve Medicaid expansion ran directly counter to both the language & intent of the ACA.
Reply Retweet Like