Posted on 11/12/2014 1:53:11 PM PST by RobaWho
nobody here seems to get the point.
the purpose of the ‘state exchanges’ provision was...
force a decision on state legislatures...
1) approve the concept of Obamacare
or
2) your state looses out on billion$
I’m sorry, I mistook your post.
I’ll look for it now.
I don’t see a siren.
Anyway, I was not accusing you of anything. I was just darned down in the dumps!
Thanks, friend. :)
That was a good example of what a typo really is. Good catch.
Thanks, friend. I have to bid you good night.
The liberals on the court do't care bout the wording, they care about their agenda.This one is going to be 9-0. I know that sounds crazy
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
There is that, but there is also the fact that if SCOTUS accepts the principle that an administration can edit a bill after it has been passed into law (and after it has even been ratified by SCOTUS), “We don’t need no stinking’ badges” expands to, “We don’t need no stinkin’ Congress,” and to “We don’t need no stinkin’ court.” And that, I submit, is a bridge too far not only for conservatives but even for “liberals” on SCOTUS.Because, indeed, it gets to “which is to be master” - over them.
The Court wouldn’t have taken the case if they didn’t intend to strike it down. After Gruber, Zeke and Barry are frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs perhaps we can restore Democracy.
You mean Constitutional Republic.
Yeah Yeah, I actually wrote Republic first, but changed it because it reads better. Poetic License
Exactly. That provision HAD a purpose. It was “not a bug, it was a FEATURE”.That purpose was maliciously political, but its architects were happy with it until it failed to intimidate most of the state governments.
Having had their bluff called, they now wish to airbrush their mistake out of history. Too late.
SCOTUS can’t go along, not for the sake of ObamaCare, but because they cannot accept the principle that an administration can rewrite a bill after it has been passed, signed, and even approved by SCOTUS. Because that is the principle that Congress and the Supreme Court are irrelevant.
I hope you’re right but I’ll bet Roberts and possibly Kennedy along with Buzzy Ginsberg and the libs say something to the effect that Congress intended all citizens (maybe they’ll even change it to all “residents” including illegals) to be elgible for subsidies from any exchange, state or federal. Roberts twisted himself into a much tighter pretzel to uphold the individual mandate.
I have to agree. Boehner and McConnel will be happy to help Obama “get something done” to smooth out Obama(doesn’t) Care implentation.
“Notice how happy Gruber is when
he gleefully announces his deception.”
Oh, it didn’t go unnoticed.
Heads on pikes are better. They “stay up” longer than the gallows or the guillotine.
Wikipedia is a great source of information on these subjects, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering
I never knew that it involved “pine tar”, which has a lower melting point and (if done correctly) doesn’t cause any permanent physical damage. Good to know!
Yup. Gruber explains how they labored over tortuous language in order to hide the true impact of the law from the CBO and the "stupid" voters. With that attention to detail, it is difficult to fathom that a typo could be made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.