Trust the GOP to root around and pull out FOUR WORDS to challenge!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The GOP has become the party of NO to any change. They cry foul with tantrums if they don't get their way. Healthcare was broke before Obama was elected. The GOP purposely did not want to address or fix it. They still have not got an alternative but they cry like spoiled children because something was done and they did not want change at all. They are fools.
*  Doesn't intent mean anything? I never hear about this but to me this could be a terrible precedent to fake apart a 2000 page law over four words that were misdrafted. Understand my point has nothing to do with whether you're for it or against it but could it set some kind of precedent that you let four words that were badly written bring down a law when the intent is clear? I would expect with this kind of tool lawyers could go many unpopular laws and find something like this.
*  The states do not have the right to tell their citizens that they can't take a Federal tax credit. It's outside of their fiscal influence. The subsidies are a tax credit ; no different than the child tax credit. The challenge will fail.
*  I know that Conservatives think this is the holly grail of destroying the Affordable Care Act, but I see this as a real win-win for Democrats. If SCOTUS upholds the ACA then it is the law of the land and the legal challenges end.  If SCOTUS rules in favor of Republicans/Conservatives, etc then Democrats will have an issue to just literally beat Republicans with until the next election. I fully expect 24/7 TV commercials showing sick people and children who have lost their insurance thanks to Republicans. The GOP presidential candidates will have to try and explain why 6 million people losing their insurance is somehow good for the country. Be careful what you wish for conservatives because this will be the issue that will finally destroy the party of billionaires, racists and greed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Justice Kagan brilliantly exposed a flaw in the huge challenge to Obamacare
By Erin Fuchs, June 24, 2015

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision any day now in a case that could severely damage healthcare reform in America, in a challenge that famously focuses on four words in the law.

During oral arguments in March, Justice Elena Kagan asked a clever question, which drew laughter, in an apparent attempt to explain why four words in one section of the law shouldn't be read literally.

The case will determine whether the US can keep subsidizing health insurance for people in the roughly three dozen states where insurance exchanges are run by the federal government.

One part of the law specifically says the federal government can establish insurance exchanges on behalf of the state, but another section says people buying insurance through exchanges "established by the state" get subsidies. The law's opponents contend this means that those buying insurance through exchanges set up by the federal government don't get subsidies.

Kagan's question, however, seemed to suggest those four words should be read in context of the entire law, which clearly aims to provide insurance subsidies for people who need them. From the transcript:

So I have three clerks, Mr. Carvin [the lawyer for the challengers]. Their names are Will and Elizabeth and Amanda. Okay? So my first clerk, I say, Will, I'd like you to write me a memo. And I say, Elizabeth, I want you to edit Will's memo once he's done. And then I say, Amanda, listen, if Will is too busy to write the memo, I want you to write such memo.

Now, my question is:  If Will is too busy to write the memo and Amanda has to write such memo, should Elizabeth edit the memo? [Laughter]

Kagan's question seems to imply the answer is yes, Elizabeth should edit the memo.

Here's Kagan's point: The ACA asked states (in her example, her clerk Will) to set up health exchanges that would get federal subsidies ("edits" by Elizabeth the clerk).

But the law also specified that the federal government (equivalent to Amanda) could step in and set up the marketplaces if the states couldn't. Those marketplaces still need the subsidies to operate in the same way the memo needed Elizabeth's edits.

Kagan was not the only justice who had tough questions for the lawyer opposing Obamacare. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote on the court, said during oral arguments he saw a "serious Constitutional" issue with the position taken by the latest opponents of the ACA.

Here's Kennedy's problem: Under the interpretation put forth by the law's opponents, states will effectively be coerced into setting up their own exchanges if they want their citizens to have insurance.

"If that's Kennedy's view of the case, there's almost no chance that the challengers can win," UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider.

A decision in this case is expected as soon as Thursday.
 ...................................................................................................................................................................