We should use this against them, and talk about how this is what happens when you pass a 2000 page law which nobody has read.
Clearly the law was written sloppily, to have this major oversight in it. We know what the intention was with the subsidies. But, the court to their credit was reading and interpreting the actual text of what the law says.
And that’s the basis for their decision. Let Pelosi etc. defend how they wrote and passed this bill in the first place. Let’s hit Pelosi over the head with her giant gavel.
It's not sloppy, it was intentional. Earlier drafts of the legislation had a federal subsidy defined, but it was removed in the effort to get the CBO scoring under $1T in cost.
“Clearly the law was written sloppily, to have this major oversight in it.”
Really think this was an oversight? What if it wasn’t? What if it was designed to suck in poor folks with the taxpayer subsidies and then pull the rug from under them? If by law they still have to purchase it, they become slaves to Obamacare.
“...Clearly the law was written sloppily, to have this major oversight in it. We know what the intention was with the subsidies. But, the court to their credit was reading and interpreting the actual text of what the law say...”
**************************************************************************************
Actually, the “INTENT” was to financially almost force the states to set up exchanges. Little did the dumb-ass democRATS who passed this law with zero Republican votes realize that many states would essentially rebel and NOT set up a state exchange.
And now the DemocRATS say that the clear and precise language in the law does not mean what it clearly says.