March 4, 201511 yr Supreme Court justices split in key challenge to Obamacare subsidies - The Washington Post From above: "But Verrilli said the challengers were ignoring the intent of a nearly 1,000-page law because of a four-word phrase." This is a lie. The language was intentional and done for a specific - very specific reason - it was to politically force the states to set up exchanges (no one really wanted a federal run exchange). It only takes 6 seconds to out the lie. From 0:34 to 0:40 in this video. BTW, if these subsidies are ruled out then the mandatory penalties go as well. All you will hear is about people 'losing' subsidies. The press will not mention the penalties unravel with this as well.
March 4, 201511 yr Author Claim from administration is that there is no fall back if they lose this case. Apparently no so. I hate listening to Mark Levin - but from 2:00 to 7:00 Sen Ben Sasse explains what Plan B is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PbBcXk05rk&app=desktop
March 5, 201511 yr Remember it wasn't a tax and then it was. I really hope the CJ doesn't take the politically expedient route again this time.
March 6, 201511 yr I just hope Ginsberg can stay awake. During the arguments the other day, many said it appeared she was dozing off. She is the poster child of why we should have age limits for SC justices.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.