http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/02/07/republican_senators_join_obamacare_lawsuit_accidentally_undermine_their.html
Back in December I wrote about the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that it was being misused to hand out subsidies. Plaintiffs, everyone from business owners to state attorneys general, argued that a line in the law that directed subsidies to plans in "state" exchanges clearly meant that states without exchanges could not join the party. The argument, which no one made in 2009–2010, was that the subsidies, clearly, were meant to induce states to set up exchanges; they'd be withheld if they didn't.
"The plain text of the statute contradicts the way the Obama administration has implemented it," Ted Cruz told me. "The law is clear that the individual mandate and the accompanying subsidies only apply if a state sets up an exchange. The Obama administration simply said, 'We’re not following that part of the law. We’re going to apply it without a state exchange.' "
The lawsuit that's gotten the furthest, Halbig v. Sebelius, lost in court after this story ran. The government's argument was that, elsewhere in the law, it's clear that the subsidies are meant for all the state plans. This did nothing to stop the doubters. A month later George Will was telling his many syndicated readers that Obama and his "lawless" IRS were violating the text of the ACA.
And now I see that Cruz has joined some fellow Republicans in an amicus brief, making the same argument—no exchange, no subsidies. The whole brief is here, but I'm not sure that it will persuade the court. Take this argument, for example.
more and more of so called "respected columnist" have been jumping in again without a thought to whether there was any water in to pool, i feel confidant that they don't read these things especially 272 pages that is why they have aides, they get a briefing just like elected officials,
no matter how good a aide is they cannot give the spirit of what they are briefing, leaving those congresspersons and senators to further misinterpret, isn't it remarkable that they have not found anything positive in Pres.'s efforts to deliver health care, fair wage, women' rights for 5 years even after re-election who do you think is wrong our choice for 2nd term or their imposing we are stupid for electing him in the first place?
Follow that? The senators acknowledge that the law was finished hurriedly and some sloppy language was left in. That's exactly what the defenders are the law are saying—that the "states" phrasing is basically a typo, contradicted elsewhere in the law. And nothing in the brief suggests the carrot-stick theory that Republicans have come around to was in existence during the 2009–2010 debate. If the intent of the legislators was not to make subsidies conditional on state exchanges, there's no case.
yes God moves in mysterious ways and bears out that old colloquialism "GOD DON'T LIKE UGLY" and what the republicans ae doing to us and this country is very ugly.