A K S A R B E N T
LightNews LightNews
banner
aksarbent.bsky.social
A K S A R B E N T
@aksarbent.bsky.social
350 followers 200 following 2.2K posts
Omaha Nebraska / aksarbent
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by A K S A R B E N T
mrains.bsky.social
When it asks for your email, use: [email protected]
December 5, 2025 at 1:31 AM
Reposted by A K S A R B E N T
jaywillis.net
I’m not kidding, this is the entire editorial. It’s six paragraphs of college Republicans talking points. It’s not just that the writer doesn’t engage in legal analysis, it’s that they’re too stupid to know that that’s something they should do in a post like this. Embarrassing! Tell me who wrote it!
Presidents too often try to advance their agendas unilaterally. Yet when it comes to funding abortion, Republicans went about it the right way: The One Big Beautiful Bill, which President Donald Trump signed in July, restricted the payment of Medicaid funds to certain abortion providers for one year. The best of The Post's opinions and commentary, in your inbox every morning What message does it send that even this legitimate, politically accountable decision has been blocked for a second time on flimsy legal grounds? Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, a nominee of President Barack Obama, tried to block the provision from going into effect in July after Planned Parenthood filed suit. Her ruling was unanimously put on hold by a three-judge appellate panel in September. Now Talwani has struck again, ordering the same result in a suit brought by states with Democratic governors. It should go without saying that Congress has the power of the purse and can steer Medicaid funds in accordance with its political priorities. But Talwani is trying to impose elaborate legal restrictions on Congress's ability to change its Medicaid policy. Talwani writes that states will be harmed by the change because "reduced contraceptive care, less frequent screenings for sexually transmitted infections, and delayed treatment for certain cancers" will burden them. Perhaps, but if the policy is harmful, residents of affected states can elect senators to reverse it. Judicial policymaking distorts the political process. The opinion also says Congress was too vague about which health care providers are covered by the new Medicaid rules. But administering a welfare state always involves interpreting rules, not all of which are black and white. If there's a dispute about whether a particular provider was covered by the law, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. It's not a reason to overturn Congress's nationwide policy. The federal courts are an important check on overreach by the elected branches of government. But courts can also overreach and undermine their own legitimacy. Appellate judges would be doing the judiciary a favor by promptly reversing Talwani, again.
December 4, 2025 at 4:10 AM