, contrary to @lsolum, I don't believe analysis will move even one Justice's vote: it won't affect outcome: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70550 .
. @lsolum strongly argues J. Kagan using Yates to set up textualist opinion in King v. Burwell http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2015/02/justice-kagans-dissent-in-yates-v-united-states-implications-for-king-v-burwell.html … But... (1/2)
-
-
-
Not only that but "plain meaning" of ACA is not what
@lsolum says it is. Not even close. RT@rickhasen@lsolum -
Start with 1321, not 1311, and plain meaning is government wins. RT
@lsolum@rickhasen -
@espinsegall@lsolum@rickhasen only of you ignore inconvenient language and provisions -
Well no but I guess we can't have it our here. Looking forward to the debate Monday in Philly. RT
@jadler1969@lsolum@rickhasen -
@espinsegall@lsolum@rickhasen still waiting for you to address rest of text, what you called "window dressing" -
This ACS symposium has articles that address those side issues and destroys them. https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/acsblog-king-v.-burwell-symposium …
@jadler1969@lsolum@rickhasen -
@espinsegall@lsolum@rickhasen there's nothing substantive in that symposium that wasnt addressed years ago - 2 more replies
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.