To be clear, for ACA to lose on this front wld be an extreme cherry-picking example of judicial activism. But then, let's not kid ourselves
@joshtpm given the text of the ACA itself, the argument is not off the wall, even if it would have terrible policy consequences.
-
-
@rickhasen I guess my sense is that if you look at totality of the law it's clear that a federal exchange was intended and there was noThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@rickhasen intent that it operate in a totally different manner than the state ones, in terms of subsidies. if your hermeneutic is intent 2Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@rickhasen i think it's open and shut. Clearly this sentence is ambiguous. But I think looking at the entirety of the law, you'd have 2Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@rickhasen to go way out on a limb to accept the plaintiff's argument and requested relief -
@joshtpm we will see. These days what's plausible and not off the wall in statutory and constitutional interpretation is ever expanding -
@rickhasen Indeed, thats my point. On standard analysis seems clear cut. But we cut the tether on standard analysis some time ago. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@joshtpm until#SCOTUS, of course (or@SCOTUSBlog) -
@rickhasen@joshtpm@SCOTUSblog By the way, when is the decision due?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@joshtpm and it is for cases like these where having the D.C. Circuit with majority Democratic-appointed judges could make a big difference -
@rickhasen@joshtpm ...you mean the law isn't objectively clear on its face and subject to interpretation based on a judge's politics? GASP!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.