Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.
How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?
That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
Really?
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com
The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?
That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
Really?
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com
Gruber didn't rite a single word of that bill. The senators and congressmen who did say that they it was never their intent to deny the state citizens access to the federal exchanges if there was no state exchange.
Again, the legislators know their intent better than you do.
That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.
It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.
So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.
They followed the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they're supposed to do.
You insist that you know what the legislative intent is better than the legislators that created the bill.
As a 2 to 1 ruling affirming the legislators intent demonstrates, you don't.
No, they didn't. Stop trying to say they did. They lied, you lie, congress lies. and you all should go to hell.
The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
Really?
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com
Gruber didn't rite a single word of that bill. The senators and congressmen who did say that they it was never their intent to deny the state citizens access to the federal exchanges if there was no state exchange.
Again, the legislators know their intent better than you do.
Most of them didn't even read the whole thing. It was done by staffers.
Again, you lie to make your point, you worthless hack. Fuck off.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.
It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.
So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.
They followed the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they're supposed to do.
You insist that you know what the legislative intent is better than the legislators that created the bill.
As a 2 to 1 ruling affirming the legislators intent demonstrates, you don't.
No, they didn't. Stop trying to say they did. They lied, you lie, congress lies. and you all should go to hell.
Says you. And the senators and congressmen who have stated that there was no intent to deny state citizens access to the federal exchanges include REPUBLICANS.
You insist its all one grand conspiracy. The court didn't buy your bullshit. Nor should they have. As the legislative intent of the bill was obvious.
The unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
Really?
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com
Gruber didn't rite a single word of that bill. The senators and congressmen who did say that they it was never their intent to deny the state citizens access to the federal exchanges if there was no state exchange.
Again, the legislators know their intent better than you do.
Most of them didn't even read the whole thing. It was done by staffers.
Again, you lie to make your point, you worthless hack. Fuck off.
I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill and accept your hapless batshit that its all a grand conspiracy.
And shocker....the court didn't buy that bullshit either. Get used to the idea.
LOLThe unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.
Really?
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com
Gruber didn't rite a single word of that bill. The senators and congressmen who did say that they it was never their intent to deny the state citizens access to the federal exchanges if there was no state exchange.
Again, the legislators know their intent better than you do.
Most of them didn't even read the whole thing. It was done by staffers.
Again, you lie to make your point, you worthless hack. Fuck off.
I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill and accept your hapless batshit that its all a grand conspiracy.
And shocker....the court didn't buy that bullshit either. Get used to the idea.
THEY FUCKING LIE.
No. They ignored nothing. They did precisely what Scalia did today in the epa case.I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.
How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?
That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.
It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.
So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.
No. They ignored nothing. They did precisely what Scalia did today in the epa case.How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?
That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
Those justices disagreeing with you outnumbered those agreeing with you by a rate of 2 to 1.
It wasn't even close. The legislative intent of the bill was obvious. And I have no problem with the courts following the legislative intent of the bill.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
That's what you say. The court disagreed. They found that the legislative intent was for state citizens to have access to federal exchanges if the state didn't set up an exchange of its own. And that the system as it was designed was dependent on this arrangement.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
The Court followed the legislative intent of the law. As they should have.
So they ignored the words to save the law as written by a legislature that is no longer in session. Wonderful.
Yes, really. Grubers opinion is not relevant. He did not write a single word. That might be why none of the justices considered what grinder said two years after the law passedThe unimaginative justices acting in lockstep were Larry (Thomas), Moe (Scalia) and Curly (Alito). There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to compel states to set up exchanges by depriving their millions of citizens access to subsidies. That would have caused the law to not function.I'm A-Okay with a court following the legislative intent of a law.
How about supporting writing laws the right way the first time?
That would certainly be preferable. But barring that, the law being interpreted in the manner it was intended is picking up the spare.
This was a 6-3 ruling. It wasn't even close. As the intent of the law was obvious.
6-3 is "close" especially when dealing with the unimaginative lockstep progressive 4 on the court. it really means you only convinced two people to go along with crap, because those other 4 couldn't have an independent thought if it was beamed into their heads.
The intent of the law was to force States to set up exchanges, when another ruling said they didn't have to, the government had to scramble and find willing accomplices.
What happened is the Court decided to ignore the passage of time, and pretend democrats were still in control of the Legislature. Nothing more.
Really?
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges Updated With Another Admission - Hit Run Reason.com
I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill
The Court decided what the law meant.
NO ! 6 supreams [SIC] decided tothe muslime mulattos soiled skivvies.
those 6 are playing politics, not the rule of Constitutional Law !!
........ and
Mr.Newyucktard.
Perhaps the problem is that people, their ideas, values and so forth change over the years, and the Court may feel compelled to accept those changes. To change the Constitution does not work, it is too difficult to amend, so the Court makes decisions that may bend the Constitution
Actually, no Republicans have claimed that they thought the law would only allow subsidies on state created exchanges. Mor importantly, the democrats wrote and introduced the law so, of course what they intended matters.I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill
Of course not. They're all Democrats.
Actually, no Republicans have claimed that they thought the law would only allow subsidies on state created exchanges.
of course what they intended matters.
No, Billy, they are not all democrats.I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill
Of course not. They're all Democrats.
No, Billy, they are not all democrats.I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill
Of course not. They're all Democrats.
No, Billy, they are not all democrats.I simply refuse to ignore the congressmen and senators that wrote and voted for this bill
Of course not. They're all Democrats.
You can't penetrate that mindset with reason or evidence. But you can point and laugh at it.
