Well, the judge isn’t exactly working with a full set of transisters, is he?
What’s the frequency, judge?
When will Obama Admin declare Obamacare is really Single Payer ,so shut up, D’oh
Short summary: It’s whatever.
When it gets to the USSC we have to remember that Roberts has been bought, at least on this issue.
This is not the case with the ACA law. While a pizza from Pizza Hut that has ham and pepperoni can be substituted with a pizza from Dominoes, the ACA states that the ham and pepperoni can be used only if it comes from Pizza Hut and not Dominoes. ...................
How can we judge their intent when no one actually read the law before they voted. They even bragged that they hadn't read it.
It is like in a criminal case where you have to prove intent or there was no crime.
In this case there was no way to know what the legislators were intending since they were voting on a law that they had not read. Therefore no one knows what was intended.
There is absolutely no doubt about the intent of the clause for excluding subsidies from Federal programs.
The Federal exchanges were barred from providing subsidies to prevent the program costs from exceeding what were already staggeringly expensive levels - a Trillion dollars as scored by CBO.
This is a part of the record - a ban on Federal Exchange subsidies were a deliberate, fully considered Cost Control measure intentionally drafted into the bill to make the costs close.
I wonder if this judge will be praised by the liberals for his wisdom, for talking about pizza.
The liberals were outraged when Justice Scalia asked if the government can force us to buy and eat broccoli. Which is why I bring up the pizza analogy. Which food analogies are considered okay with liberals, and which ones are absurd. What are the liberal criteria here?
Great, now I can pay my taxes to my cousin instead of the IRS because I still complied with a literal construction of paying taxes!
Where do they find these Judges? At the bottom of a box of Cracker Jacks?
Just another libtard indulging in what libtards do - hair-splitting exercises.
It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t comport with the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, or traditional precedent - I want what I want and I’ll torture language, the law, and anything else in my way until I get what I want.
(Cue 6 year old child on his back stomping his feet)
Immaterial since no one FORCED you to have pizza for lunch, you judicial dipstick!
I liked what Krauthammer said last night. Everyone knows that the democrats intentionally made the bill to put pressure on the R governors to set up exchanges. They put incentives in the bill to force them to set up a state exchange. The incentive and they all know it, wrote it, read it and then voted for it, “Governors that hate their constituents enough to not set up an exchange do not get subsidies.” Plan, simple and diabolical and it back fired!!!
what contingency provision exactly?
A more accurate analogy is this: I have a coupon for half off the price of a sausage and pepperoni pizza at Domino’s. When I take that coupon to Pizza Hut, I will still pay full price for the pizza.