Gruber is on tape describing the necessary ‘churn’ in the insurance markets zerocare would bring, which caused millions and millions to lose coverage they wanted, so why would the ‘churn’ of ruling for the plaintiffs matter? Couldn’t a amicus be submitted to Kennedy that the insurance cos were delighted with ‘churn’ when it was churning THEIR way?
I am going to try and not get too hyped out until its a fact that the SCOTUS failed the Constitution and gave over to tyranny.
Blind speculation is not our friend.