Taken as a whole, yes, it does.
He’s explained it himself. Is there an explanation you would not dismiss as non-serious?
So when the two bills were merged, decisions had to be made about what to keep from each bill, yes?
Yes. And that article just traced how that wording wound up in the final law and makes it clear that it was not intended to deny subsidies to states that didn’t set up their own exchanges by tracing the origin of the wording. That settles the issue pretty definitively, doesn’t it?
That’s actually a really good argument. And why I think it can go either way. There are many ways to look at this.
Legitimate, from a non-lawyers standpoint, meaning to meet the basic requirements for a lawsuit. Does the plaintiff have standing? Has the plaintiff suffered an actual injury?
For example, I can’t sue the Mayor of Chicago simply because I don’t like him or only because he was elected mayor of Chicago.
The election results was certified. I do not live in Chicago, so I would have zero standing and the Mayor hasn’t illegally raised my property taxes, confiscated my hunting boots, or scratched my car, so I have suffered no injury.
I’m not sure if a judge would have to hear my case before tossing it out or the DA/SA office could refuse to proceed to court w/o a judge’s opinion. Either way, I do not have a legitimate case.
Perhaps if you saw it from our point of view. You support universal health care, so you aren’t too concerned about the details of how it comes to be. From our point of view, Democrats took advantage of a tiny window of opportunity to pass a partisan bill that they didn’t even read, nor did they consider for even a moment the likely consequences of said bill(except for the ponies part. They really liked the ponies). They even included a couple of clearly unconstitutional assertions within the bill, one of which just got struck down entirely, the other carefully redefined to be legal under a power Congress didn’t even claim(the tax power). THen they proceeded to sell this bill by lying like crazy about it, and when opponents pointed out these lies, they went ahead and smeared their opponents as well.
So yeah, we’ve got a legitimate right to make Democrats lie in the bed they made for themselves. They passed a deeply flawed law, and now they are hoping that a combination of favorable court decisions, administrative delays, and sheer administrative alterations will make it better. It’s an example of bad lawmaking that should not be rewarded.
Nice. I see what you did there.
SHOW ME THE MONEY. Pay up, sucka. Where’s the lettuce, the cash, dough, cabbage, moolah, smackers, clams, bones, bucks, loot, greenbacks, C-note, lucre, dead presidents, ducats, simoleons, …?
Since I was the first person to respond to your post, and you said you would pay $100 to the first person responding to your post, where’s my money? 
You’re factually wrong about that.
And about that, too.
Not only are you factually wrong about that as well, but the Supreme Court says so too.
Oddly, nothing’s happened, and the majority of court decisions are the other way. Gee, you must love being wrong.
And most Americans are happy to let that happen.
Perhaps you could name a major law that was perfect for all time, right as written. Fixing problems as they arise, making the system better, is how responsible governance (you could ask your parents about it) works. Or worked when we did not have a party, yours, devoted to opposing everything the majority of We the People voted for, that was debated thoroughly, passed accordingly, and implemented to the satisfaction of anyone who is not under the spell of your party’s lies.
And all you have to hope for is failure. You don’t have anything better to offer, just fuck-yous. All you sore losers, with nothing to contribute, do or can do is complain and obstruct and sabotage, in opposition to what We the People have thought about for a long time and voted in favor of and like now that we have it and want to make even better. You’re not opposing just a law that you cannot counter with a superior, or even existing alternative, a law you yourself proposed when being anti-Democratic became a more important principle to you than being pro-American, you’re opposing democracy itself.
No, there is no legitimacy to be found anywhere in there.
You’re not aware of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the bill as unconstitutional?
The one you said you cared about at the time was the forced purchase requirement. Did you change your mind about something after the fact?
We’re not talking about what I said I cared about. We’re talking about the statement:
“They even included a couple of clearly unconstitutional assertions within the bill”
That you claim is “factually wrong”. I guess you were “factually wrong” about that.
So even you can’t say what they were, much less that they were “clearly” unconstitutional (an adverb of hope, and hope for failure at that, not fact)? :dubious:
I note that you won’t even address any other point above, in addition to not even knowing what point you *are *claiming to address.
Have you *always *hated Democrats more than you love America and its people and its democracy, or only since the Muslim Socialist Kenyan got elected?
Sure I can. But seriously, you are not aware of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the bill as unconstitutional? Answer that - and if you are not, I will give you a cite.
So that would be No. Got it. :rolleyes:
Apparently you think you’re making a key, overriding point of some kind, something that would somehow vindicate everything your party has stood for since Obama’s inauguration, if only you could remember what it is.
My “overriding point” is that your post accusing someone of being wrong was, in fact, “factually wrong” itself. Something you cannot apparently bring yourself to admit.
That’s what I thought, sadly. You’re not only just sniping, you’re shooting blanks.
I thought you were a moron before. Now my opinion of you just took a dive.
All this sniping back and forth!
Portions of the PPACA have been ruled unconstitutional by a various courts, up to and including the Supreme Court. At times a ruling of unconstitutionality by a lower court was reversed by a higher court. The mandatory Medicaid Expansion is perhaps the most notable section overruled by the courts.
There is a whole Wikipedia article on Constitutional challenges to the PPACA
That one came as a complete surprise, the mandatory-purchase aspect being the core of the anti-Obama argument, and calling it “clear” is a misstatement of fact. Even so, it exemplifies the anti-Democrat and anti-democratic orientation of today’s Republican Party, not the “legitimacy” of the try-anything-as-long-as-it-fucks-'em-somehow tactics they use. The ridiculous Halbig case (remember that? It’s the thread topic) is just another.