ACA subsidies at SCOTUS

[Bluegrasscard]

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.

[Bluegrasscard]

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

[All Tell]

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.

[ggclfan]

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.