[alancarp]

"The ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges."

Oops. Guess Nancy just found out about something not in the law now that they've passed it.

More to the point, though: I just don't understand how on earth a judge - even a biased one - could rule in favor of the Administration if the law indicates one thing in one place and another thing somewhere else. Judges just can't "fix" errors in the text.

[DestroyLiberalism]

<<
More to the point, though: I just don’t understand how on earth a judge - even a biased one - could rule in favor of the Administration if the law indicates one thing in one place and another thing somewhere else. Judges just can’t “fix” errors in the text.
>>

************************************************************

But that’s exactly what “Chief Justice” Roberts did... He literally re-wrote the individual mandate as a “tax” when the language of the legislation passed into law clearly stated it was a “penalty” and therefore unconstitutional.