General Discussion

meaculpa2011

(918 posts)

5. Dear Professor...

Mon Nov 10, 2014, 10:10 AM

Nov 2014

it was not a typo.

Whether you're for or against there is little doubt that when legislation contains the words "state exchanges" numerous times and when legislators conduct recorded interviews describing their intent on the matter, also numerous times, the term typo does not apply.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Paul Krugman: Is the Supreme Court going to f*ck us again? [View all] Cyrano Nov 2014 OP

"What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters" NRaleighLiberal Nov 2014 #1

Isn't that the motto of the GOP? valerief Nov 2014 #36

that's my view, for sure. NRaleighLiberal Nov 2014 #40

I think it's, historylovr Nov 2014 #58

A lot of court cases are lost or won based on a typeo yeoman6987 Nov 2014 #2

Yes, that's much more important than geek tragedy Nov 2014 #4

but courts don't just say hah! there's a typo, throw it all out -- unblock Nov 2014 #6

Roberts will do exactly that! Helen Borg Nov 2014 #12

+100000! Agree totally. He may even take aim at the scope of the Commerce Clause while he's at it. RufusTFirefly Nov 2014 #20

what was the intent? alc Nov 2014 #91

i don't have the answer. some cases require an a hearing and careful weighing of competing facts unblock Nov 2014 #92

As I've been arguing in another thread, it looks pretty simple Rstrstx Nov 2014 #95

Many times it's not a typo. Big business literally WRITES our legislation. nt stillwaiting Nov 2014 #7

Lawmakers do not write legislation. former9thward Nov 2014 #23

Congress needs an... ReRe Nov 2014 #39

Is it a typeo, type or typo? (The irony in your reply) LeftInTX Nov 2014 #38

Such a contribution to the discussion yeoman6987 Nov 2014 #53

I thought maybe you had done it on purpose to illustrate a point. LeftInTX Nov 2014 #59

No, don't most rules of the ct say clerical error is an excuse for the error? lonestarnot Nov 2014 #41

There wasn't even a typo safeinOhio Nov 2014 #3

Money = Speech ---- Duh StevePaulson Nov 2014 #37

Dear Professor... meaculpa2011 Nov 2014 #5

a) At the time that the law was written, states were obliged to set up exchanges and offer medicaid. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2014 #19

I agree. Even this Court can't, or will not, contort this into something that guts ACA. Hoyt Nov 2014 #30

DC was defined as a state for this law. So that doesn't help. Yo_Mama Nov 2014 #56

The very fact that the Court accepted this case Cyrano Nov 2014 #8

Leaving no Congressional fingerprints on the body... Orsino Nov 2014 #10

Obama will probably tell states that they can... Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #34

Or they just want to settle the matter because of the extreme disruption involved. Yo_Mama Nov 2014 #47

Yes, I remember when these same a-holes killed the ACA when they ruled against the hughee99 Nov 2014 #49

That's the key isn't it... Blanks Nov 2014 #68

Thanks for all the replies! yeoman6987 Nov 2014 #9

Should they overturn the ACA on this technicality Gman Nov 2014 #11

I'm not especially worried. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2014 #13

This all obama's fault djnicadress Nov 2014 #14

Obama is rich enough. L0oniX Nov 2014 #18

reply djnicadress Nov 2014 #22

This is 2014 not the late 1930's. L0oniX Nov 2014 #24

you need read up on history if you think there is a big difference between 1930s and today djnicadress Nov 2014 #27

LMFAO L0oniX Nov 2014 #28

It's as much your fault pnwmom Nov 2014 #42

Shit, if they followed intent the mandate would be gone but Roberts re imagined it into a tax TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #80

The intent was to have a mandate. pnwmom Nov 2014 #84

Are you really trying to claim they were not swearing up and down that it wasn't a tax? TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #86

They didn't care what it was as long as there was a mandate. n/t pnwmom Nov 2014 #89

And, there it is! The "It's all Obama's fault".. detailing the insidious cluelessness of the ODSers Cha Nov 2014 #90

Evil RW intent heaven05 Nov 2014 #15

If this comes about it may be the wake up call that changes everything NoMoreRepugs Nov 2014 #16

Republican governors screwing people out of Medicaid expansion didn't hurt them. Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #35

Ain't nothing ...like being rat fucked by the SCOTUS. L0oniX Nov 2014 #17

I especially like how they made George W Bush pretzeldent. Octafish Nov 2014 #26

RTFD - Read the Fucking Document joeglow3 Nov 2014 #21

Your documents at work aren't subject to Supreme Court interpretation. pnwmom Nov 2014 #43

Actually, in a prior life, a client had a contract that was over 25,000 pages joeglow3 Nov 2014 #50

That might be true, if this SCOTUS truebluegreen Nov 2014 #74

Well given that they did not hesitate to help buy the election with Citizens United....... jwirr Nov 2014 #25

obama need flat out say if aca gets struck down i will have no choice but push for medicare for all. djnicadress Nov 2014 #29

That wouldn't be a threat. They don't care if he "pushes" for Medicare because pnwmom Nov 2014 #44

in future they might djnicadress Nov 2014 #66

There will be no time in the remainder of his Presidency that he will be able to do shit about TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #85

The Five Terrorist Dictators... SoapBox Nov 2014 #31

If they mess with health care, at least Dems will will show up in 2014. zonkers Nov 2014 #32

Less than a typo. Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #33

I misunderstood you at first. pnwmom Nov 2014 #45

My post was a paraphrase of a court opinion upholding subsidies. They made the pizza analogy. NT Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #52

One court that was dominated by Rethugs. Most other rulings have taken the opposite position. n/t pnwmom Nov 2014 #55

The pizza analogy is pro Obamacare analysis by an Obama appointed judge. Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #61

And that pizza analogy makes complete sense. pnwmom Nov 2014 #70

Great analogy. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2014 #65

The Supreme Court Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #69

I suspect Krug underestimates Pantagruelsmember Nov 2014 #46

Why they won't change it. ^^ harun Nov 2014 #64

The easy, short answer... 3catwoman3 Nov 2014 #48

The short answer is yes. The Repubs will get their own bite at the apple. badtoworse Nov 2014 #51

Repubs Won't Fix It, They Can Just Blame the Democrats for the Mess AndyTiedye Nov 2014 #93

When you adopt RW laws this is what you get. Puzzledtraveller Nov 2014 #54

The ACA passed without a single Republican vote. badtoworse Nov 2014 #57

I think the poster was referring to the fact that the ACA was originally a Heritage Foundation idea Wella Nov 2014 #60

Maybe, but if so, he's leaving a lot open to speculation. badtoworse Nov 2014 #62

I notice that people don't back up assertions here Wella Nov 2014 #63

They are. They'd be to the right of about any governing party in the west. TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #87

K&R! napkinz Nov 2014 #67

The people voted against affordable health care. I'm still B Calm Nov 2014 #71

Democrats will still represent more people in the Senate Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #75

Even Scalia beleives that typos or obvious misspeaking should be ignored. Vattel Nov 2014 #72

It isn't literally a typo. Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #77

So it doesn't say that tax subsidies are available ONLY on state exchanges? Vattel Nov 2014 #78

This is the section which Republicans seized on Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #81

Thx for the info. Vattel Nov 2014 #82

You're welcome. NT Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #83

So if a state in the federal exchange sets up their own, they keep the subsidy? roamer65 Nov 2014 #73

Or a state could post a link to the Obamacare website Eric J in MN Nov 2014 #76

They don't fail to have exchanges because they can't locate a developer TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #88

yes because they now totally can all of the time....geeeze of course. glinda Nov 2014 #79

Good fucking question, Paul Krugman Cha Nov 2014 #94

kick napkinz Nov 2014 #96