Posted on 01/16/2015 1:45:06 PM PST by jazusamo
Thanks and I’m no legal beagle either and you are correct in the bases for the challenge but what’s confusing is the semantics of the law’s wording of who is and is not eligible for subsidies. The wording is clear and so was Gruber’s statement but the administration’s defense as I understand it will argue that the words addressing the subsidies issue don’t mean what the words say as originally written. We all know that’s BS or the administration wouldn’t have changed them but there in lies a conundrum for the Supreme Court by themselves having previously changed the law as it was initially written.
Anyone who knows should enlighten us. I'm sure it would be good for a few laughs.
Doesn't matter if you heard of it or not; nor if it's fraudulent (predated effective)
It's got tax free exemption.
Lois Lerner signed it.
It's the law! ("deal with it" -- per Diane Feinstein)
WOW!
This is a case where we are all Missourians...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.