Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Also, he's not my President either because I live in a sovereign constitutional monarchy that exists as a sphere with a radius of four feet extending from my abdomen at all times.

 

[Wilsongt]

 

[ivysaur12]

I give up. I would like to debate you gals and guys, but.... Love for all of you and I wish you the best.

who are you

 

[B-Dubs]

who are you

Someone might have just given away their alt account...

 

[benjipwns]

America's Mayor/Time's 2001 Person of the Year Speaks Out

The former New York mayor, speaking in front of the 2016 Republican presidential contender and about 60 right-leaning business executives and conservative media types, directly challenged Obama’s patriotism, discussing what he called weak foreign policy decisions and questionable public remarks when confronting terrorists.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

With Walker sitting just a few seats away, Giuliani continued by saying that “with all our flaws we’re the most exceptional country in the world. I’m looking for a presidential candidate who can express that, do that and carry it out.”

“What country has left so many young men and women dead abroad to save other countries without taking land? This is not the colonial empire that somehow he has in his hand. I’ve never felt that from him. I felt that from [George] W [Bush]. I felt that from [Bill] Clinton. I felt that from every American president, including ones I disagreed with, including [Jimmy] Carter. I don’t feel that from President Obama.”

...

“I thought the Crown Heights riots were a pogrom because you’re going out trying to kill Jews,” Giuliani said. “Why is this man incapable of saying that? You’ve got to be able to criticize Islam for the parts of Islam that are wrong. You criticize Christianity for the part of Christianity that is wrong. I’m not sure how wrong the Crusades are. The Crusades were kind of an equal battle between two groups of barbarians. The Muslims and the crusading barbarians. What the hell? What’s wrong with this man that he can’t stand up and say there’s a part of Islam that’s sick?”

 

[Wilsongt]

Someone might have just given away their alt account...

Oh snap. Was wondering why Jack was banned...?

 

[benjipwns]

I think C4Lukins is a conservative, or leans that way, I've seen him in a few political threads before. Had a negative take on Obama that lined up with conservative views on whatever issue.

He might have been responding to the earlier discussion about getting more conservatives in this thread?

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh snap. Was wondering why Jack was banned...?

The alt would have been banned as well, he got the hit for something else. A mod probably thought he was getting too heated and decided to give him a time out.

 

[East Lake]

America's Mayor/Time's 2001 Person of the Year Speaks Out

I don't get the colonial empire bit. Is he saying Obama thinks we're a colonial empire where other whiter presidents didn't? Weirdly worded.

 

[benjipwns]

I think it's supposed to be "head" not "hand" and this is a rehash of the old conservative argument that "liberals" feel ashamed of America doing good in the world and fighting evil and see it as a evil imperialist that needs to be brought down as Marx demanded. And Rudy is saying that he didn't get the feeling that Bush or Clinton or even Carter felt that way, that they knew and believed in America's god-given mission. While Obama hates it and wants to punish it for its non-existent crimes.

Not necessarily because he's black but because he's been steeped in the Marxism of academia and Europe that constantly indoctrinates people to believe America is an evil empire. Probably by Bill Ayers.

 

[Wilsongt]

One South Dakota Republican is so incensed at Planned Parenthood that he wrote a post on his website actually titled “Planned Parenthood worse than ISIS and lying about it.”

State Representative Isaac Latterell invokes the recent ISIS beheadings and then asserts that “Planned Parenthood abortionists in Sioux Falls are similarly beheading unborn children during dismemberment abortions.” He claims Planned Parenthood is lying about providing such abortions and uses a David Brooks column about the brutality of ISIS terrorists to apply the same logic to Planned Parenthood:

I am beyond angry at what Planned Parenthood is doing to us and to our children. In the words of David Brooks, their actions and their lies “show contempt for us and our morality”, “deny the slightest acknowledgment of our common humanity”, and “take the bully’s maximum relish in their power over the weak and innocent”.

He is pushing a bill to stop the procedure. For what it’s worth, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson denied to Talking Points Memo that they perform those kind of abortions in South Dakota in the first place.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/south-dakota-state-rep-planned-parenthood-is-worse-than-isis/

It's too late/early for a snarky comment. So just point and laugh.

 

[East Lake]

I think it's supposed to be "head" not "hand" and this is a rehash of the old conservative argument that "liberals" feel ashamed of America doing good in the world and fighting evil and see it as a evil imperialist that needs to be brought down as Marx demanded. And Rudy is saying that he didn't get the feeling that Bush or Clinton or even Carter felt that way, that they knew and believed in America's god-given mission. While Obama hates it and wants to punish it for its non-existent crimes.

Not necessarily because he's black but because he's been steeped in the Marxism of academia and Europe that constantly indoctrinates people to believe America is an evil empire. Probably by Bill Ayers.

Yeah the black part was only my own quip wasn't trying to look into his purpose there. The sentence was kinda hard to parse though. I guess we need to bust some Iranian skulls to fix all this.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah the black part was only my own quip wasn't trying to look into his purpose there. The sentence was kinda hard to parse though. I guess we need to bust some Iranian skulls to fix all this.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Iranians, just as long as they're brown we should be good.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/south-dakota-state-rep-planned-parenthood-is-worse-than-isis/

It's too late/early for a snarky comment. So just point and laugh.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152700998&postcount=9659

 

[East Lake]

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm so sick of this ISIS obession in the media. Its a real problem for the middle east and seemingly europe (though even then its not a existential threat)

but you'd think the sky was falling and were all under invasion. It further plays into the propaganda war that's being waged. Isis is seemingly controlling the narrative and the media is all to happy to play a long because they get a few more dead people to talk about.

Obama's done a pretty god job of using restrained power and keeping americans safe but the media is seemingly trying to drag us into another unwinable war. that has no objective besides "kill a bunch of people because"

It's a pretty blatant case of media propaganda, reminiscent of the breathless coverage Iraq/Saddam received leading up to that war. It's clear the war drums are being beaten. Over a group of fanatics that poses no threat to our country, and could not withstand a decisive attack from a decent military. There are plenty of such forces in the Middle East; perhaps they should do something.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's not, but that doesn't mean he deserves to go uncriticized at any time.

I haven't suggested otherwise.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

MO Secretary of State Jason Kander has announced he's running for senate in 2016 to challenge Roy Blunt.

Kander barely won his race in 2012 but I think he has the profile of a credible challenger. Young, war veteran, etc.

Blunt machine is strong though

 

[RustyNails]

It's a pretty blatant case of media propaganda, reminiscent of the breathless coverage Iraq/Saddam received leading up to that war. It's clear the war drums are being beaten. Over a group of fanatics that poses no threat to our country, and could not withstand a decisive attack from a decent military. There are plenty of such forces in the Middle East; perhaps they should do something.

This is my stance as well. The scaremongering by media is reminiscent of mushroom cloud hysteria from 2003, especially the part about ISIS sympathizers coming back to US.

It's middle east's war, despite our gargantuan fuck up. The most we should do is provide intelligence and air support.

 

[Wilsongt]

This is my stance as well. The scaremongering by media is reminiscent of mushroom cloud hysteria from 2003, especially the part about ISIS sympathizers coming back to US.

It's middle east's war, despite our gargantuan fuck up. The most we should do is provide intelligence and air support.

If Bush wins, you can expect a ground war before he has a chance to put an ass dent in his chair in the oval office.

 

[FyreWulff]

I've seen it too. It feels like all the media channels are just yip yipping the war drum.

I'm generally anti-war, as a disclaimer, and I swear to god they use the dramatic phrasing on each channel/outlet. Stop riling people up for the sake of ratings, media, you're going to get our soldiers killed to win sweeps.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is my stance as well. The scaremongering by media is reminiscent of mushroom cloud hysteria from 2003, especially the part about ISIS sympathizers coming back to US.

It's middle east's war, despite our gargantuan fuck up. The most we should do is provide intelligence and air support.

Indeed.

I will admit that it's possible a small scale attack could happen here, but that has always been the case and always will be. It's not hard to grab a gun and shoot up a restaurant or grocery store. And my fear is that something like that could happen and tip us into a large scale conflict and ruin Obama's presidency ("he wasn't focused on terror, now it's at our doorstep").

 

[Poodlestrike]

I'm going to say something unpopular: I think we should play a large part in fighting ISIS. Not just because their rise is... largely our fault, and certainly not because they're some sort of threat to us (they're not), but because we have the power to stop them, so we should.

 

[Cat]

My local-focused (San Antonio city, TX overall) Twitter list is abuzz that a same-sex couple married in Austin by court order, but I'm still waiting for a full article with more details.

Edit-Apparently, it's only for this couple.

 

[thepotatoman]

If Bush wins, you can expect a ground war before he has a chance to put an ass dent in his chair in the oval office.

Seeing as he's already putting together a crew that consists of mostly the same people as his brother, I don't know how anyone would expect anything different.

 

[Coriolanus]

Didn't Bams ask for congressional approval against Daesh? What happened to that?

 

[Teggy]

Didn't Bams ask for congressional approval against Daesh? What happened to that?

Yes, but Republicans didn't think it was severe enough or something.

EDIT: actually, they are sitting on it for the moment, deciding if they are going to debate it.

 

[FiggyCal]

I'm going to say something unpopular: I think we should play a large part in fighting ISIS. Not just because their rise is... largely our fault, and certainly not because they're some sort of threat to us (we're not), but because we have the power to stop them, so we should.

What is the most effective way of doing that? I think the coalition with our air support is the best method because it doesn't allow them to conveniently label the situation as a U.S. war on Islam and legitimize their Islamic State.

 

[Grexeno]

Yes, but Republicans didn't think it was severe enough or something.

EDIT: actually, they are sitting on it for the moment, deciding if they are going to debate it.

Sounds like they're going to try and sit on it until Daesh does something big against an American target overseas, and then say "WHERE WAS THE MILITARY ACTION WE TOLD YOU SO."

 

[Crisco]

Didn't Bams ask for congressional approval against Daesh? What happened to that?

There's no incentive for them to pass it. It's basically a formal request to keep doing what we're already doing, which they've loudly and publicly rejected as the wrong strategy (even though it's clearly had an effect on the ground). They want a war authorization that includes triggers or conditions for a ground invasion, not one that explicitly prohibits one.

This is how most ISIS fighters are leaving Kobani thanks to US airstrikes,

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/...Nebraska-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ban-292614221.html

A federal judge will be asked Thursday to tell the state of Nebraska that it immediately must recognize same-sex marriages while a lawsuit challenging the state's gay marriage ban proceeds.

The hearing before U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon in Omaha is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The judge already decided not to delay the lawsuit in Nebraska while the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the issue.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska filed the motion for an injunction that would order the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The lawsuit was filed in November by seven same-sex couples seeking to have their marriages recognized despite the state's ban passed by voters in 2000.

 

[Poodlestrike]

What is the most effective way of doing that? I think the coalition with our air support is the best method because it doesn't allow them to conveniently label the situation as a U.S. war on Islam and legitimize their Islamic State.

Of course we shouldn't go in full cowboy, Iraq/Afghanistan style. But I don't think that we should necessarily be ruling out an increased US presence alongside the other members of the coalition.

 

[cooljeanius]

Is any of PoliGaf paying attention to the West Coast Port strike thread over on gaming-side? Good to see that people seem to be slightly more respectful of unions here on GAF than other places that I've seen this story reported...

 

[Poodlestrike]

Is any of PoliGaf paying attention to the West Coast Port strike thread over on gaming-side? Good to see that people seem to be slightly more respectful of unions here on GAF than other places that I've seen this story reported...

NPR did a bit on it earlier. Was pretty good. The arbitrators being the sticking point is interesting.

 

[Aaron Strife]

MO Secretary of State Jason Kander has announced he's running for senate in 2016 to challenge Roy Blunt.

Kander barely won his race in 2012 but I think he has the profile of a credible challenger. Young, war veteran, etc.

Blunt machine is strong though

I don't think he'll win but it's nice to have a credible challenger in every race we can. I also wouldn't count his 2012 near-loss against him - it was an open seat in a state that went heavily for Romney. Not everyone can run against Todd Akin.

Nasty surprise for Scott Walker, when the national media starts reporting on his Wisconsin antics the kids' gloves come off (to an extent).

 

[Metaphoreus]

A few items of interest:

(1) The challengers' reply brief in King has been filed. I especially liked the following two paragraphs:

The Government’s effort to explain is laughably unpersuasive. Congress had to use this phrase, it argues, because of “style and grammar,” to “identify the Exchange in a particular State.” (Govt.Br.33.) That is, because the same sentence of § 36B begins by authorizing subsidies for plans “in the individual market within a State,” its subsequent reference to an Exchange had to make clear that it was “referring to the Exchange in the specific State mentioned,” not some other Exchange. (Govt.Br.33-34.) “Established by the State” was supposedly how it did so.

If anything, however, § 36B’s switch from “within a State” to “established by the State” confirms that the latter restrictive formulation means what it says. Had Congress merely wanted to refer back to the “specific State mentioned earlier,” it would have just changed the article from “a” to “the”—specifying the “Exchange within the State.” That would have avoided any (unlikely) confusion over which state was intended, and clearly swept in HHS Exchanges. It is also what Congress did elsewhere. 42 U.S.C. § 18032(e)(1) (authorizing “a State” to allow brokers to enroll people “through an Exchange in the State”). By contrast, § 36B focuses on who established the Exchange in the state.

This is the same point I made in my response to eBay Huckster:

(Regarding subsection A, note the subtle change in language between the two phrases relating to States. The first is “within a State,” and the second is “by the State.” It’s obvious why the latter phrase exchanges “the” for “a,” since it’s referring back to the State identified in the first phrase. Likewise, it’s obvious why the former phrase uses “within” instead of “by”—the ACA does not call on states to act as health insurers. But why does the latter replace “within” with “by,” if Congress meant to say “within” in each? Courts presume that Congress, in using two different terms, intends two different meanings.)

(2) White House Struggles on Immigration Ruling:

President Obama's lawyers, facing what could be months of delay on the White House's immigration efforts, are struggling for a response to a Texas judge's ruling that has imperiled one of the president's potential legacy achievements.

A top administration official said Wednesday it was unclear whether the Department of Justice would seek an emergency order that would allow the president's immigration programs to go into effect while an appeal proceeds. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that no decision had been made on an emergency application to an appeals court, but she pledged to fight all challenges to the president's actions.

...

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the administration's lawyers were reviewing their legal options and said he expected a decision within a day or two about how they would challenge the judge's ruling.

This apparent lack of preparation is a bit surprising, according to Prof. Josh Blackman:

I am really, really confused. For the last month or so, based on my reading of the transcript, I was fairly convinced Judge Hanen would issue a preliminary injunction, putting DAPA on hold. I have to imagine the Justice Department reached a similar conclusion. Even more so, I have to imagine that DOJ recognized that a federal district court could put enjoin DAPA even before a suit was filed, based on procedural or substantive grounds. From my research on Obamacare, teams were assembled before the law was even passed to prepare litigation strategies. So what happened?!

...

If the administration files for an expedited appeal, followed by certiorari, it would effectively be impossible to resolve the issue before July. The case will be argued next term, with a decision as late as in June 2016. At that point, the administration is over. Why wouldn’t they go with the emergency stay?

More importantly, why was this decision not made weeks, if not months ago?

(3) National Review's Ed Whelan calls on Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the same-sex marriage case:

At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly explained that the judicial obligation of impartiality required that she give “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” about how she might “vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.” As she declared in her opening statement:

A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

...

Ginsburg’s public comments provide ample reason to question her impartiality. Indeed, it’s no surprise (but still appalling) that the Human Rights Campaign is using Ginsburg’s comments to solicit signatures for the amicus brief that it will be submitting to the Court in the pending marriage cases:

...

We will soon see whether Justice Ginsburg is “intellectually honest enough to know that [she] slipped” and to recuse herself from the pending marriage cases.

In a follow-up post, he writes:

Justice Ginsburg herself seems to have recognized, belatedly, that she crossed ethical lines in her recent Bloomberg interview. In her MSNBC interview two days ago, Ginsburg stated:

I don’t want to talk about what you describe as gay rights. Because as you know, we have a very important case that’s going to be heard in April. And I don’t want to suggest how the court will decide that case, one way or another.

But Ginsburg can’t unring the bell. She can’t undo the statements that she’s already made that warrant her recusal.

(4) Southern Tier towns looking to cut NY ties:

The local economy is pushing one organization in Upstate New York to pose a question: Is it possible to secede to Pennsylvania?

The Upstate New York Towns Association is researching this very topic. The group says a few factors pushing its research are high property taxes, low sales tax revenue and the recent decision to ban hydraulic fracturing in New York.

"The Southern Tier is desolate," said Conklin Town Supervisor Jim Finch (R). "We have no jobs and no income. The richest resource we have is in the ground."

Finch said the ground in Conklin is rich with natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. However, that shale is unable to be tapped. He described this ban as a violation of his natural rights as a property owner.

There are 15 towns interested in the secession, according to the Towns Association. These towns are in Broome, Delaware, Tioga and Sullivan counties. The association declined to name the towns without their permission and also declined to comment on specifics at this time. As of now, research is ongoing. The group will be updating Action News with all of their findings in the coming weeks.

 

[Wilsongt]

If someone thinks RBG recusing herself will do anything to change the outcome of the gay marriage debate, then they are complete idiots. This is a done deal.

Also, I still find it hilarious that "within" and "by" is the entire basis of a lawsuit against the ACA.

 

[RustyNails]

If Bush wins, you can expect a ground war before he has a chance to put an ass dent in his chair in the oval office.

Actually they will bomb Iran before ISIS. Republicans must be kept as far away from the red button as possible.

I'm really hoping Obama can strike a deal with Iran and forever remove that possibility from the table for any president in future. GOP uses Iran as a football to see how far the candidates can kick it in every election. Of course you also have shitstains like democratic senator Menendez.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Also, I still find it hilarious that "within" and "by" is the entire basis of a lawsuit against the ACA.

It's not the entire basis, but--and this shouldn't surprise you--it turns out that words have meanings, and different words mean different things.

 

[Trouble]

Ed Whelan apparently thinks that having an opinion on something is a conflict of interest. By that logic Scalia needs to recuse himself as well.

 

[ivysaur12]

Ed Whelan apparently thinks that having an opinion on something is a conflict of interest. By that logic Scalia needs to recuse himself as well.

Is it really an opinion as much as it's stating a fact? "People have come out, and thus more people have accepted marriage equality" is the crux of what she stated. Any pollster could tell you that, regardless of their position on the issue.

 

[Crisco]

If someone thinks RBG recusing herself will do anything to change the outcome of the gay marriage debate, then they are complete idiots. This is a done deal.

Also, I still find it hilarious that "within" and "by" is the entire basis of a lawsuit against the ACA.

Of course it is, what did you expect? Their case doesn't exactly lend itself to a bevy of novel arguments. Every single facet of their argument goes back to simple grammatical (not legal) construction. They don't bother explaining how Congress intended the overall statutory scheme to accomplish it's goals without the subsidies in question, or how federal exchanges without subsidies make any sense at all, because that would require critical thought and a real nuanced view. Lacking that, it focuses on things it's supporters can easily comprehend, like meanings of 3-4 letter words.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Ed Whelan apparently thinks that having an opinion on something is a conflict of interest. By that logic Scalia needs to recuse himself as well.

From everything.

Forever.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's not the entire basis, but--and this shouldn't surprise you--it turns out that words have meanings, and different words mean different things.

I understand you disagree, but there is no substantial difference to me in its meaning and its application. At best, it's slightly obtuse, which means that we should err on the side of what the government/IRS says that it intended, along with the intention by Congress when it was passed -- something that has been well documented.

(Still reading), but so far, I find this reply brief -- to use their words -- laughably unpersuasive in its attempt to use logical hoops to constrict words and meaning to say that the law does something completely different than what is written. Not to mention have an application that is completely different than the authors of the law intended.

Of course it is, what did you expect? Their case doesn't exactly lend itself to a bevy of novel arguments. Every single facet of their argument goes back to simple grammatical (not legal) construction. They don't bother explaining how Congress intended the overall statutory scheme to accomplish it's goals without the subsidies in question, or how federal exchanges without subsidies make any sense at all, because that would require critical thought and a real nuanced view. Lacking that, it focuses on things it's supporters can easily comprehend, like meanings 3-4 letter words.

And those 3-4 letter words, by themselves, don't even lend themselves to their own arguments.

 

[Crisco]

I mean seriously, this is sort of shit supporters of the case have to get behind,

Had the IRS from the start made clear that
subsidies were limited to state Exchanges, states
would not have overwhelmingly refused to establish
them. Indeed, Congress had no reason to doubt that
all (or virtually all) states would establish Exchanges
to ensure citizens’ eligibility for subsidies.

I'd almost rather admit to believing in God.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Will Hispanic support for democrats collapse in light of the administration's lack of preparation for challenges to the deportation executive action? This could doom Hillary.

 

[ivysaur12]

Will Hispanic support for democrats collapse in light of the administration's lack of preparation for challenges to the deportation executive action? This could doom Hillary.

Fixed.

 

[RustyNails]

Will Hispanic support for democrats collapse in light of the administration's lack of preparation for challenges to the deportation executive action? This could doom Hillary.

I highly doubt the administration went with the order without realizing that a challenge is inevitable.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Ed Whelan apparently thinks that having an opinion on something is a conflict of interest. By that logic Scalia needs to recuse himself as well.

Is it really an opinion as much as it's stating a fact? "People have come out, and thus more people have accepted marriage equality" is the crux of what she stated. Any pollster could tell you that, regardless of their position on the issue.

Yeah, I don't think Whelan's right. Ginsburg's comments don't really have to do with the merits of the question, but with how society might react to a ruling striking down same-sex marriage bans. Contrast that with Scalia's recusal in the pledge-of-allegiance case a few years ago, wherein Scalia (according to Slate) suggested the 9th Circuit opinion was wrong. Those are quite different sorts of statements.

On the other hand, the HRC's use of Ginsburg's statement to drum up support for its "People's Brief" is clearly untoward. But that can't really be pinned on Ginsburg.

Every single facet of their argument goes back to simple grammatical (not legal) construction.

Out of curiosity, what is this distinction you're drawing between grammatical and legal construction? What would be an argument based on legal but not grammatical construction? I suspect your complaint is that the challengers are unwilling to make a policy argument, but I'd like for you to clarify before I respond to that notion.

They don't bother explaining how Congress intended the overall statutory scheme to accomplish it's goals without the subsidies in question

Of course they do. You later even quote the portion of their brief addressing just this question, though missing its significance. They write:

Had the IRS from the start made clear that subsidies were limited to state Exchanges, states would not have overwhelmingly refused to establish them.

Stated differently, the King challengers argue that the lack of credits on FFEs was to serve as an inducement to states to take on the task of establishing their own Exchange. Elsewhere, the challengers point out that this reading makes the most sense of 1311's use of the mandatory "shall" when discussing states establishing Exchanges:

[T]here is no basis to infer—under any interpretive theory—that Members of Congress who read § 36B did not “intend” the limit on subsidies its text plainly imposes (and which concededly furthers the textually stated purpose that states "shall” run Exchanges).

...

Hence, what would be unusual is if Congress had provided that state residents would receive subsidies whether or not states abided by a directive that they “shall” establish Exchanges, turning that “shall” into just a toothless suggestion.

or how federal exchanges without subsidies make any sense at all

You and I have discussed this already, but it has been awhile, and you've probably slept since then. If you don't feel like a stroll down Memory Lane, though, here's the King challengers saying much the same as I said:

Third, the Government contends that Congress thought Exchanges served no viable function without subsidies and would not have created any Exchanges absent them. (Govt.Br.44.) That too is demonstrably false. Territorial Exchanges provide no subsidies. 42 U.S.C. § 18043(a). And the legislative history consistently emphasizes that the Exchanges’ primary function is to create an “organized and transparent marketplace” for consumers to “shop and compare health insurance options.” H.R. Rep. No. 111-443, at 976 (2010); see also 156 Cong. Rec. S1137 (Mar. 4, 2010) (Sen. Baucus) (“Just like Orbitz, just like Expedia.”); 155 Cong. Rec. S10452 (Oct. 15, 2009); id. S12651 (Dec. 8, 2009). Hence the Government’s representation in NFIB that “exchanges” and “tax credits” are “stand-alone provision” that “independently advanc[e]” Congress’s goals. . . .

In stark contrast, no member of the ACA Congress identified subsidies as critical to a “three-legged stool” (Econ.Am.Br.3) or said that Exchanges absent subsidies would cause “adverse selection” or trigger “death spirals.” Rather, as the Government emphasized in NFIB, the individual mandate was justified on these grounds, “[a]s demonstrated by the experience of States that attempted [insurance] reforms without a minimum coverage provision.”

I understand you disagree, but there is no substantial difference to me in its meaning and its application. At best, it's slightly obtuse, which means that we should err on the side of what the government/IRS says that it intended, along with the intention by Congress when it was passed -- something that has been well documented.

(Still reading), but so far, I find this reply brief -- to use their words -- laughably unpersuasive in its attempt to use logical hoops to constrict words and meaning to say that the law does something completely different than what is written. Not to mention have an application that is completely different than the authors of the law intended.

What do you mean in distinguishing between "meaning" and "application"? And where do you see the challengers using "logical hoops to constrict words and meaning to say that the law does something completely different than what is written"? I think the challengers' argument is the only one that permits the law to operate precisely as written, so I'm curious what leads you to disagree.

 

[pigeon]

I'm really looking forward to the King opinion so that we can get back to talking about how Hillary will lose the 2016 nomination battle against Michelle Obama, who will go on to defeat Palin/Santorum by keeping Pennsylvania blue.

 

[Coriolanus]

"Hey guys, the democrats botched immigration reform. Let us vote for the other party, cuz those guys harbor a well-known love for immigrants."