[cuban leaf]

This would exceed any prior bad ruling. It would be an out and out lie.

The law written is explicit and unambiguous.

---

And when you add the actual comments by those involved in the writing of, and voting on the law, there is no “sane” way to read it any other way. But I’m still not optimistic.

[Ray76]

They did not anticipate states not taking inducements, i.e. subsidies for their citizens.

Be aware of the campaign of manipulation being waged.

Watch for references to Obama’s “signature health law”. This is to personalize it, to make it about Obama. This is preparation to leveling charges of “hating Obama” and of course “racism”. Whether or not it is any person’s “signature” law is utterly irrelevant. Irrelevant except for those who wish to set the stage for attacking the motives of the plaintiffs.

Another tactic is claiming that a ruling for the plaintiffs would “could cost states billions and billions of dollars”. The subsidies are not a cost to the state or to the recipients of the subsidy. The cost is to federal taxpayers who are funding the illegal subsidy. A ruling for the plaintiffs would save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.

These are both to generate a political climate, to intimidate the court.