Roberts and Alito are RINGERS that George Bush Jr. INSTALLED to further his familys ONE WORLD GIVERNMENT treasonous agenda..
The whole family are One Worlders.. always have been..
So is Barry Soetero... the Clintoons.. and K Street..
And just how do you do that if it's completely ambiguous? An "accurate reading" becomes whatever some bureaucrat says it is.
There is nothing ambiguous about it. It plainly says State Exchanges are the ones that can provide the subsidies. And Gruber’s videotapes plainly reveal that that was their intent.
Nothing much here. The Supreme Court has junked the Constitution for years and will continue.
Roberts: “I’ll cook up another convoluted pretzel to which no other Justice will sign”.
That is why we get creeping totalitarianism through bureaucratic overreach. The government was created to defend our liberty, not to destroy it. If the CJ of SCOTUS doesn't see the court's role as one of restraining the federal leviathan's encroachments on liberty then we are lost.
This will not end well.
First, I do not think Roberts will vote to gut Obamacare after the lengths he went to last time to rewrite the whole thing as just one big tax bill. From oral arguments this morning, it appears that Kennedy will also flip this time. So it is extremely likely that the Court will rewrite Obamacare to extend the subsidies by either a 5/4 or 6/3 vote.
In the unlikely event that the Court actually follows the law and throws out the subsidies then we will have a replay of the amnesty budget debacle.
The Democrats and the lamestream media will loudly blame the evil Republicans for stealing subsidies and insurance from millions of poor people who are now relying on it. The House will respond by passing a bill extending subsidies for this year and then terminating or scaling back Obamacare. The Democrats in the Senate will insist on a “clean” bill just extending the subsidies.
The Republicans will then cave and that will be that.
A law is where a rule or rules state a prescribed course of action which are required to be undertaken. Whenever the statement of a prescribed course of action is too ambiguous to reliably prescribe the course of action, by definition there can be no reliable or customary prescription, rule or law.
Ambiguous: Clear language that does not mean what a liberal wants it to mean.
Clear: Ambiguous language as defined by a liberal.
Get it?
Roberts preparing to punt.
Blackmailed bastard he is!
How come the WH is NEVER held to account for their dirty tricks? WAKE UP, SCROTUS.
They are not laws now. They are “concepts”.
Deciding in favor of Obama would let all future Congresses off the hook for more and more wordsmithing shenanigans. I wonder if the USSC is noting that, if nothing else. They are just fencing themselves in as garbage collectors.
I know I am a lowly self-educated (post-indoctrination center [aka ‘school’]) serf but, what happened to void for vagueness?
Only gov’t could think that making an incomprehensible Law would allow the SAME gov’t to dictate exactly what ‘they meant’ instead of what was PASSED.
It’s a damn shame the lawyer didn’t smack down the Leftist judges when they started spouting off ‘the words written, in plain English, don’t mean what they say’
IOW, the Dhimmicraps cna change it any way they want, but Republicans had better not change it back.