Obamacare: Sarah Kliff Slams King vs Burwell Plaintiffs Thought Crimes; Skips Legal Issues

NewsBusters ^ | February 10, 2015 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

Forget about the legal merits of the King vs Burwell case which states that the Obamacare law actually means what it says: that subsidies should only go to state-run, not federal exchanges. What really counts according to Sarah Kliff of General Electric Vox is that the plaintiffs in this case are guilty of the thought crime of thinking ill of (GASP!) President Obama.

I'm not sure if even Saul Goodman would dare to make that argument but Sarah Kliff sure takes a good shot at it. The first plaintiff up for analysis in Vox's Room 101 is Rose Luck whose Those Crimes were posted in Facebook to the extreme disapproval of our Ms. Kliff

[PJ-Comix]

A couple of "Better Call Saul" references in this article.

[Organic Panic]

There was only 1 sentence that mattered in all of Obamacare. The rest doesn't matter. And that is...

The secretary shall determine....

There is no judge who will vote against any part of Obamacare. If, on the off chance a judge is found, it won't matter. Who's going to enforce the law?