The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
On Sabre/Farelogix Merger, DOJ Mustn’t Undertake a Misguided Antitrust Boondoggle

The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard of its proposed acquisition of Farelogix, but it looms as one of the most important antitrust cases to approach trial since AT&T/Time-Warner. The transaction’s most significant aspect is the way in which it offers a perfect illustration of overzealous bureaucratic antitrust enforcement, and the way that can delay and also punish American consumers. Specifically, the transaction enhances rather than inhibits market competition, and will benefit both travelers and the travel industry by accelerating innovation.  That’s in part because Sabre and Farelogix aren’t head-to-head market competitors, but rather complementary businesses.  While Sabre serves customers throughout the…[more]

January 13, 2020 • 03:53 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Senate Democrats and Scorched-Earth Judicial Politics Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, September 11 2014
The full court's unjustified decision to rehear the case en banc not only unnecessarily obstructs and delays Supreme Court resolution, it appears to be a transparently politicized decision to rescue ObamaCare.

Whereas Senate Democrats routinely employ scorched-Earth tactics in the realm of judicial politics, Senate Republicans have tended to act with comparative timidity. 

In an ominous new ruling from the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding an important ObamaCare decision from earlier this summer, Democrats' Machiavellian methods are again proving fruitful.  Accordingly, as the likelihood of a GOP takeover this November appears increasingly likely, the question becomes whether they've learned their lesson and will respond appropriately going forward. 

Back in 2005, President George W. Bush had just won reelection and Republicans controlled the Senate by a comfortable 55 to 45 disparity. 

Led by then-Minority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nevada), Democrats responded with unprecedented hardball tactics, filibustering appellate court nominees on a wholesale basis for the first time.  After ten more Bush nominees were summarily filibustered - including Miguel Estrada, whom Democrats literally labeled "Especially dangerous ... because he is Latino" - Senate Republicans finally began responding with corrective measures.  Specifically, they contemplated changing Senate rules to prohibit filibusters during judicial confirmation votes. 

Reid and Senate Democrats howled in protest, asserting that sacred Senate tradition must be preserved, and that rules required a two-thirds majority to revise or amend them in any case. 

At that point, seven of the more infamously fainthearted Republican Senators - Lincoln Chafee, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, John Warner, Olympia Snowe and Mike DeWine - came to Harry Reid's rescue.  Along with seven Democratic Senators, they collectively formed the "Gang of Fourteen" and agreed that Democrats could only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances." 

And so Harry Reid's cherished filibuster lived another day. 

Until November 2013, that is.  The same Harry Reid who claimed to treasure Senate tradition when Republicans controlled that branch cobbled together a narrow 52-48 vote (with 3 Democrats and all Republicans in opposition) to prohibit filibusters against all executive branch nominations, with the sole exception of Supreme Court nominees. 

Say what you will about the habitually sleazy behavior of Harry Reid, his maneuvers often achieve his desired ends.  A new ruling from an appellate court he helped pack is the latest example.  Just days ago, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which Reid and Obama had packed after ending the Senate filibuster, voted to rehear en banc the Halbig v. Burwell decision from earlier this year. 

By way of reminder, Halbig is the case in which a 2-1 majority ruled earlier this summer that ObamaCare's statutory text meant what it said in creating federal subsidies only for exchanges "established by the State."  When the Democrat-controlled Congress passed ObamaCare in 2010 by a razor-thin margin, it sought to persuade states to create insurance exchanges through which the dysfunctional law would operate.  But because the federal government can't outright order states to carry out its policies, Congress offered the carrot of federal subsidies for states that cooperated, and the stick of denying subsidies for states refusing to cooperate.  Thus the law's text directed federal dollars to "an Exchange established by the State."  Little did ObamaCare's proponents anticipate that 36 states would subsequently decline to involve themselves in the law's dysfunction.  Facing logistical disaster, the IRS simply chose to ignore the law's plain text, and ordered that subsidies also be allowed for exchanges operated by the federal government in the 36 non-participating states. 

In July, however, the D.C. Court of Appeals invalidated that Obama Administration attempt to circumvent its own law.  "It is not our job," the 2-1 majority held, "to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." 

Enter the full D.C. Court of Appeals, which now maintains an 8 to 5 liberal majority after Reid's court-packing effort added three new Obama appointees last year. 

The D.C. Circuit's own guidelines for en banc review set a very high "exceptional importance" standard for reviewing panel rulings, usually limited to cases in which the panel has overturned existing D.C. Circuit precedent or some constitutional principle is involved (as opposed to statutory interpretation as in this case).  In a typical year, only one or two out of 500 cases heard qualify for such review. 

The full court's unjustified decision to rehear the case en banc not only unnecessarily obstructs and delays Supreme Court resolution, it appears to be a transparently politicized decision to rescue ObamaCare.  On that note, Harry Reid openly congratulated himself when asked whether his Senate tactics underlie this turn of events by saying, "If you look at simple math, it sure does." 

But polls increasingly suggest that Reid's days as Majority Leader are numbered. 

As November approaches, and the possibility of additional appellate court and even Supreme Court nominations over the next two years looms, American voters are entitled to consider Reid's behavior and the role the Senate plays in critical judicial matters.  They might also press Senate candidates seeking their votes to answer whether they're willing to play judicial hardball as well. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first African-American soloist to appear at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: 'Sure, you can have your lawyers here…[more]
 
 
—Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
— Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Should witnesses be called for the Senate impeachment trial, which could take weeks or even months, or be restricted to the record and evidence already produced by the House?