dagblog - Comments for "Supreme Court Elephants and bitches."

Thanks, I hope so.

Oxy Mora — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:38:51 +0000

In reply to According to what I've been

Thanks, I hope so.

According to what I've been

ocean-kat — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:33:06 +0000

In reply to But don't forget, if the next

According to what I've been reading this decision precludes that possibility. It's not a matter of interpretation. The over all reading of the ACA makes it clear that the provisions containing the word "state" were just poorly worded Roberts wrote. Roberts went into detail about many provisions of the act that make no sense if subsidies are available only on a state exchange. I'm not a lawyer but all the writers I've read that discuss this issue say that Roberts closed the matter of interpretation for good.

But don't forget, if the next

Oxy Mora — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:31:48 +0000

In reply to OKAY!

But don't forget, if the next administration can interpret it differently ( a kind of scotal recall) Jeb NoLastName could screw the whole thing up again.

OKAY!

Richard Day — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:24:25 +0000

In reply to I'm not sayin' I called this

OKAY!

It is actually SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of US.

Although, it appears that THEY stick us from time to time.

the end

I'm not sayin' I called this

Oxy Mora — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:05:41 +0000

In reply to Supreme Court Elephants and bitches.

I'm not sayin' I called this back in March but I was smellin' it purty good for a bitchin' amateur. Essentially Roberts kicked it back to "Agency" interpretation, which his question may have portended.

But don't get too excited. Scrotus is most likely going to stick it to us when the religious freedom crap comes up to the surface again.

And for Thomas and Scalia,

Oxy Mora — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:51:52 +0000

In reply to Today I ran across the

And for Thomas and Scalia, unfortunately, there seems to be no Preparation that will stop their

b--itchin'.

It's in your Social Security

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:26:47 +0000

In reply to hahahhhahhah

It's in your Social Security safebox, don't you see it?

hahahhhahhah

Richard Day — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:19:17 +0000

In reply to Today I ran across the

hahahhhahhah

Okay, here we go, the same damn blog;

I hereby render unto Peracles the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me?

You're still sending me the fifty bucks, right?

hahahah

Today I ran across the

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:58:52 +0000

In reply to Supreme Court Elephants and bitches.

Today I ran across the "Elephant Test" - 'it's hard to describe, but immediately recognizable once you see it."

I seem to recall on Talking Points Memo owning the word "Bitch", and it appears all the bitchez are finally comin' home to roost.

As for Justice Thomas, sometimes there's nary affine line [sic] between a Sphinx and a Sphinxter.

I just never got this man

Oxy Mora — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 01:46:27 +0000

In reply to I see Thomas as a person who

I just never got this man from Day 1.

One might think he could throw in one measly comment about the human suffering which will be caused if the state exchanges are trashed by this facetious law suit.