- Thread starter
- #41
"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and which defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."
In Upholding Obamacare s Subsidies Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law Again - Hit Run Reason.com
Your attempt at destroying me has started by you citing a word-changing liar. The phrase, "established by a State," does not exist in the ACA or in Scalia's dissent. The phrase used is "established by the State," and 'the State' can be and was interpreted by the SCOTUS to mean 'the government' because it is not referring to a plurality of states. Mark Levin always refers to central government proponents and liberals as statists. Are you saying Mark Levin is an idiot?
"And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and which defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not."
In Upholding Obamacare s Subsidies Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law Again - Hit Run Reason.com
For clarity...are you a fool or a liar?
Thanks for clearing that up....
So, you're simply a garden variety Liberal liar.
Not a lot of room in that category.