re: Obamacare Appeal --- Jonathan Gruber doing more work

quote:

---

And, all the government has to do is say he is not the architect of the bill and any notion of establishing a fact is out of the window.

---

And, you're stupid enough to think that Scalia, or any other Justice, is going to say, "Well, I guess you have me there. I'll stop my questioning because you've got me!"

Or maybe, Scalia would add, "Didn't the Odumbf*ck Administration pay a Mr. Gruber almost $400,000 to advise it on Odumbf*ckCare? Isn't this the same Mr. Gruber who was instrumental in writing Massachusetts similar law which the Odumbf*ck Administration claimed it's law was based on? And, didn't Mr. Gruber state that this provision was purposefully put in the bill to 'encourage' states to form their own exchanges all before, of course, he ever thought this would be issue? And, yet, hasn't this same Mr. Gruber filed amicus briefs saying that it's now just a 'typo'?"


Once again -- you really are that f*cking stupid.

quote:

---

That's shite that needs to take place at the district court, not at the appellate level.

---

First, not if the video wasn't available to the attorneys at that time.


Second, I've cited you an article which quotes the rule of evidence you brought up in the first place. When it comes to Judicial Notice, there is nothing in the rule of evidence that states any such thing. As the article points out, at the appellate level, they can take judicial notice of things not presented at the district court level --- THAT is the f*cking point. If it was presented at the D.C. level, they wouldn't need to take Judicial Notice.

Look you are just wrong. At best, they can take notice of the existence of the video, but no one can take notice that his words evidence congressional intent. You're absolutely wrong.

This has been awesome.

I agree with both your avatars, but have a strong preference for FP's.

Can you both tell me where you earned your JD's? It'll help me decide which of you knows what you're talking about.

TIA.