Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,124
- 14,807
- 2,180
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
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.