Halbig and the Failure of Port Side Wannabe Wonks

Sean Davis shows that when it comes to covering the Halbig case and its aftermath, the allegedly wonky bloggers and pundits on the port side of the partisan/ideological divide are not exactly setting any records when it comes to doing their jobs properly. As Davis points out, the pundits and bloggers in question have a strange propensity for making the exact opposite of the case they set out to make in discussing Halbig. In addition, Davis demonstrates that the port side punditry class didn’t even see the Halbig decision coming. The fact that there was a case, and the fact that it went against the Obama administration and supporters of Obamacare totally flummoxed the left-of-center punditry class. Quoth Davis:

At some point, rather than constantly assuming that they know everything there is to know about everything worth knowing, it would be nice if just a few members of the esteemed Juicebox crowd acknowledged that maybe their close-mindedness was affecting their collective ability to accurately capture and report on American politics. It would be nice if they took the time to interview people like Michael Cannon, rather than just cranking up the volume in their own echo chamber.

That type of honest behavior would definitely be nice. But I can’t possibly imagine it.

This is the part where I point out that contrary to what the port side believes, they are not free from the ravages of epistemic closure.

Equally amusing is Michael Cannon’s piece on Jonathan Gruber. Read it all. I’ve emphasized the following point before, but it is worth letting Cannon help us make it again:

Gruber was so heavily involved in writing the PPACA that when he boasts, “I know more about this law than any other economist” — and that he even wrote part of the bill himself — everyone believes him. When the chief architect of the PPACA admits it withholds tax credits in uncooperative states, that establishes that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statute in Halbig was not only plausible but that it had currency among the law’s authors.

And it is precisely because of Gruber’s intellect and profound familiarity with the PPACA that his attempts to explain away his past statements are not credible.

All of the evidence that is needed to show that the outcome in Halbig was entirely plausible–if not entirely likely–exists and is part of the public record. The only people who appear to be surprised are members of the Obama administration and their supporters in the pundit class. You know, the people who like to call themselves “the reality-based community.”