[Tilted Irish Kilt]

(from the article):" resident Obama bluntly challenged the Supreme Court over a pending ruling on the validity of ObamaCare subsidies,
complaining Monday that the court should never have taken up the case --
and warning that a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law."

This empty suit has nerve talking about "twisted interpretation" of the law."
The administrations lawyers argued that ObamaCare wasn't a tax, and the legislation was 'deemed' to be lawful as taxation by the Supreme Court. He praised the Court.
Now that the over 1789 pages of legislation, now law, is challenged due to punctuation and intent, he believes that the law is above reproach or judicial review.
Typical Narcissist behavior !
How many changes were made in the interprettion of the law that was passed by Congress just to keep it afloat ?
I quit counting after 32 changes to keep the Affordable Care Act alive ; changes that were not brought before Congress .
The United States of America is a nation of laws ; laws provide consistancy and equality of application.
With Obama , it's HIS way of intreretation of law,..or the highway!, ..or prepare for a HISSEY-FIT !

[bluescape]

If the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies, which states will be better off? The ones that set up their own exchanges or the ones that didn’t?

I thought I remembered states like mine, Oklahoma, refused the federal exchanges because of the horrible regulations that they included.