[itsahoot]

There is no way for a judge to rule that the "intent" is to provide a subsidy through a federal exchange, despite being in stark contrast to the actual language of the bill, without completely undermining the legal system.

To late for that, already been done. Roberts ruled the ACA was a tax in spite of the feds argument that it emphatically was not a tax, but a fee.

[kevkrom]

To late for that, already been done. Roberts ruled the ACA was a tax in spite of the feds argument that it emphatically was not a tax, but a fee.

That what they said to the public. In the legal system, they insisted it was a tax, and Roberts, along with several of the competing lower court decisions, agreed.