Discussion for article #225842
These people are seriously desperate. It’s like arguing about the location of the jezail bullet in Dr. Watson. Conan Doyle gives three locations in three separate Sherlock Holmes stories: his shoulder, his leg or “one of his limbs”. Obsessive fans argue about which of these is the “correct” location. Suffice it to say, the Dr. was a wounded veteran.
Idiots.
1 Like
Gruber is not part of Congress.
1 Like
So they are asking the United States Supreme Court to take judicial notice of an interview that wasn’t part of the record? First of all I don’t know if the SCOTUS can take judicial notice of evidence since it is a reviewing and not a trial court. Second it is hearsay and not really admissible under any hearsay exception. Third it is patently unfair to take notice of Gruber’s comments without giving him the opportunity he would have in a courtroom of explaining the remarks. Of course since it is being done in the name of stopping affordable health care for millions of Americans, Roberts and company will probably be fine with it.
1 Like
That nails the case shut. Obamacare is dead.
Thanks to that precedent, I can now state with certainty that: the purpose of the Iraq war was to tell the Islamic Middle East to “Suck. On. This.”; that the Iraq war mostly paid for itself; and that we know where the WMDs we never found were.
2 Likes
Out of context bullshit is the only thing these dirtbags have to offer.
Maybe they should also quote the dissent by Scalia in the prior Obamacare case where he laid out in precise fashion the reason for and function of the subsidies, describing how they extend to all applicants who qualify based on income and how they are essential to the operation of the law. Totally fucking in context.
What I’m saying here, and I’m not alone, is that the usual suspects who these fuckholes are relying on to invalidate the subsidies have already proffered the exact opposite argument in a fucking supreme court ruling.
Now don’t get me wrong. I expect zero consistency from Scalia and his vermin pals. But their legitimacy would be so cratered that enforcement of their treachery would amount to a crime against the American people.
Which brings me to another point. If Obama doesn’t want to enforce a judicial ruling, who the fuck is gonna make him do it? Shit, he could just issue an executive order stating that any exchange on Healthcare.gov is for purposes of the ACA a state exchange. Who’s gonna stop him?
Nobody, that’s who. SCrOTUS has ZERO enforcement ability. They rely entirely upon the good faith of the executive and to a far, far lesser extent Congress. Congress really can’t do shit either, except impeach, and they’ve cried wolf on that bullshit. What…you’re gonna impeach a president for preserving tax credits per the clear intent of the law? Good luck, fuckholes.
The president of the united states, as Lincoln reminded us, is clothed in immense power. Just watch what happens on immigration.
1 Like
Akin to basing a Supreme Court on gossip or hearsay. Chutzpah!
1 Like
Great.
Let’s take that video and file it under “persuasive statements from experts,” and see what other statements were made by Gruber, Jost, economists doing the mark-ups (Elmendorf, Orszag, Stallings, whoever was working on it from Executive or Legislative branches) we can put in the other stack.
Then we can measure.
Ours is bigger.
1 Like
Simply hyperbole to goad the states into establishing exchanges and spoken in the heat of battle.
Can they do this? This in adding “evidence” evidence to the case, and I’m not sure you can do this on appeal…
Far as I know you cannot. It is looking at the evidence that was already presented. New evidence, I think has to start on a lower court, but there may be exceptions. For like Death row and such.
Gruber although the “architect” had absolutely nothing to do with the drafting of the section of the law that only mentions “state exchanges” in relation to subsidies. He was speculating, equipped with a poor memory of the final wording, when he said this irrelevant and inadmissible-in-court nonsense.