Did I say I agreed with Bricker? I don’t think I did. You might.
Strangely, a court can do that easily. This, on the other hand, is cold fusion.
The law is being challenged in court(s) so yes, there are legitimate and legal objections. And there probably will be more in the future. You can object to each and every objection but that isn’t going to alter or stop the legal challenges.
Preposterous? There are several legitimate legal challenges that still need to be answered. And they will be answered.
“Legitimate” does not follow from “exists”.
And if it’s not a legitimate challenge, the judicial body has ways to shut that whole thing down. Seriously, the fact that other courts keep going the other way on this does not bode well for your side, and nobody seems to think the en banc hearing will go well either.
And court cases will still be brought in order to clear up the pssst-poor wording of yet another poorly legislated law. That’s part of the process.
I have not come across *anyone *doubting that your side will continue its lies and sabotage and general obstruction attempts, by any means available. For you to point out the fact is not illuminating.
I’m sure you understand what that post means but effective communication is a two-way street. The transmission should be clear and the reception should be clear. In the end, both parties should understand what is being said. I have no idea what you are attempting to say.
I’ll go ahead and say I’m sure it’ll keep happening. Far better to try to break the law then, admit it addresses a problem and try to improve it. I’m sure voters will be thankful that conservatives tried to take away their health insurance based on a technicality.
Sadly, I think you’re right about that. Horse, water.
Legal and legitimate attempts.
I have no idea how many people you normally come across on a daily basis, let alone how many you actually discuss this issue with. (Shouting at passing cars doesn’t count.) Just for reference purposes, approximately how many people have you actually come across? 2? 12? 144? 3?
Legal, sometimes, legitimate, not so much. Hint: This isn’t one, no matter how hard you wish.
Horse + water = sweat and urine.
If someone such as yourself can’t communicate in a manner that allows others to understand your intention or meaning, what chance does the current U.S. Congress have of writing a clear and easily understood law?
Then the court would toss it out before it’s even heard.
That’s the *legal *part, which isn’t in dispute, not the *legitimate *part. A judge will give a plaintiff vast latitude to try to show there’s a case before telling them to get stuffed - as has been almost unanimously the result so far, and you can take off the almost part pretty soon.
Let me know if you have trouble understanding that too, but if so, I really won’t be able to help you.
Can you point out exactly what your disagreement with Bricker (on whether it is “a single sentence” or not) is?
Not “everything.”
But it’s not a single sentence.
Is it?
Because the law they actually passed didn’t say that subsidies were available to customers of federal exchanges?
And can you offer a serious explanation for why Gruber would TWICE, on two different days in two different speeches, say what he said?
Can you offer an explanation for why he and so many others said the opposite on so many other occasions?
Yet another analysis of why the subsidies-as-cudgel argument doesn’t work.