I predict that the Supremes will decide 6-3 that the plain words of the law mean what those words say — ONLY states with a state exchange can have subsidies paid for their residents.
And I also predict that following that SC decision there will arise, WITHIN THE STUPID PARTY, a push to expand subsidies to the federal exchange states. Within the federal exchange states there will arise pressure to establish state exchanges to replace the federal exchange so those residents can be subsidized.
Conservatives MUST not support such changes since they are meant only to resuscitate the rotting corpse that is Obamacare. Democrats own 100% of that rotting corpse; let’s not add Republican ownership.
I agree 6-3. Roberts will HAVE to agree with the exact wording in the law.
And I agree with your comment on the GOP.
If the GOP enacts law to provides subsidies beyond what the democrats enacted, then I will officially sever the last of my ties to the GOP.
But if we can past the SCOTUS (likely) and RINOs congressment (50-50 chance), then Obamacare is toast!
I wonder if it would help if both the new House and the new Senate file a “Sense of the House/Senate” to affirm that when they, as a body, defined those parties eligible for subsidies, they intended the definitions and instructions used, to be understood explicitly as stated. Anything else would leave legislating to courts, which have no Constitutional role in crafting legislation.
The only defense for defining the law as the law (though the court should do this anyways), is that there are interviews with the law architects saying that the “no subsidies without a state exchange” was deliberate to force the states to set them up - thus not an oversight.
That is probably what the backward idiots in the SC will come up with. Tax money cannot be handed to anyone unless it is approved by he House and voted positive by the Senate. King Obama, the communists black Muslim traitor, as king just does what the hell he wants. We have lost America and may never be returned.
Everyone knows that the bill was changed in debate to remove subsidies to federal exchanges as a compromise to get the bill passed. As I've posted before, we cannot allow a system where the Democrat get to negotiate in bad faith, knowing that whatever compromises they make in legislation will be reversed in the courts, allowing Democrats to get what they want in the end regardless.
SCOTUS must hold the legislature to the intent of their words by taking the debate and compromises into account.
-PJ