re: 4th Circuit COA and dissent in Halbig are hilariously wrong about "intent"

quote:

---

After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.

---

See? Just like Rex said. Had very little to do with crafting the ACA. He helped draft the specifics, not craft the bill. Very big difference there.

Like I've said before you could tell Rex it's pouring outside, and he walk out, get soaking wet, come back in and say "See? Told you it's not pouring. It's raining, not pouring, you lying liar."

quote:

---

The interesting part is that this interview is from 2012 while, in 2013, he was filing briefs with the court stating the exact opposite position.

---

Hmmmm....

Sounds like a Rule 11 violation, and a material misrepresentation to the Court.

But, but, but, but he later filed an amicus brief. I wonder if he explained to the court why he LIED in the 2012 speech???

They're all the end justifies the means LIBERAL SCUM ....

quote:

---

Amici describe for the court the “sensible” approach to interpreting the PPACA – and dismiss the plaintiffs’ approach as “absurd,” “implausible,” and “inconceivable” – without ever mentioning, much less analyzing, the actual words of the statute.

---

This guy should be prosecuted. I'll hold my breath and wait for Eric "The Scumbag" Holder to do the right thing.

Here's the quote from the video --

quote:

---

The federal government has been sort of slow to put on this backstop because they want to SQUEEZE THE STATES TO DO IT. I think what’s important to remember politically about this is that if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I HOPE THAT THAT’S A BLATANT ENOUGH POLITICAL REALITY THAT STATE’S WILL GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER AND REALIZE THAT THERE ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT STAKE HERE IN SETTING UP THESE EXCHANGES AND THEY’LL DO IT. BUT, ONCE AGAIN THE POLITICS CAN GET UGLY AROUND THIS.

---

Didn't Rex tell us that there was NOTHING ANYWHERE to suggest that Congress didn't extend the subsidies to states in order to "persuade" these states to set up exchanges???

Hmmmm ... I guess the fact that one of the primary drafters and supporters of the legislation says it as clear as day still will not convince the warped mind of Lil' Rexy that this was the point of providing subsidies only to those on STATE-RUN Exchanges.


"BUT, ONCE AGAIN THE POLITICS CAN GET UGLY AROUND THIS."

Yeah, Mr. Gruber, so UGLY that you later would file a perjured amicus brief.

you don't?

Me...

quote:

---

(Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:41 am to udtiger)

It will be "there was more than just one architect".

---

Rex...

quote:

---

(Posted on 7/25/14 at 9:04 am to udtiger)

Gruber had very little to do with crafting the ACA, except with initial mathematical theorization. There is no evidence that Congress intended to treat citizens in different states differently, and much evidence within the statutes, themselves, that subsidies would be available to everyone. Also, the congessmen,THEMSELVES, who crafted the law submitted briefs to the district courts making crystal clear what their intent was.

---

Tah-daaaaaaah!

quote:

---

Also, the congessmen,THEMSELVES, who crafted the law submitted briefs to the district courts making crystal clear what their intent was.

---

You mean the same Congressmen who told the public that Obamacre wasn't a tax? Are you willing to admit that every Democrat who claimed Obamacre was not a tax was lying to the electorate all along since they claimed their intent wasn't to raise taxes on the middle class?

I'm sorry, but after the fact statements of your good intents for failed acts are self-serving and must be viewed in that light. Those same Congressmen sure were happy to pat themselves on the back for Obamacare until people actually got to read what they had passed. Once that happened they started with the "we meant something else" explanations.

BTW, Mr. Gruber refused to admit Obamacare is a tax even after the Supreme Court declared it is a tax.

quote:

---

Jonathan Gruber, a healthcare economist who helped design Obama’s healthcare overhaul, made the same point as Carney on a conference call with reporters Friday.

“It’s not a tax on the middle class,” Gruber said. “It’s a choice they’re making.”

---

. LINK People have a choice whether they pay excise taxes or not, does that mean all excise taxes are not taxes?

quote:

---

Please, please, please don't gloat about predicting Rex. It's really beneath you. He's the most pathetically predictable Kool-Aid drinking hack on the internet.

---

Your sarcasm meter must have started the weekend early. ;)

quote:

---

intent of Congress

---

Congress didn't even know what their intent was. They had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.