gocart mozart believes that Republicans may not be entirely principled in determining when the statements of public officials or consultants to public officials are relevant to legal questions:
Only off the cuff comments of MIT healthcare economic consultants are relevant (mandatory even) and no take backsies.
Yes, but clearly the situations are totally different. When Prof. Gruber secretly agreed to serve in the offices of President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of Health and Services, Chief Justice of the United States, and Head Coach of the New England Patriots, he did not take an oath. Based on extensive, well-settled precedent*, taking an oath immediately renders all previous statements inoperative when determining intent. Since Gruber didn’t take an oath, his extemporaneous comments about the ACA are absolutely dispositive evidence that the federal exchanges were designed to fail. Conversely, since every legislator involved in the passage of the ACA was bound to uphold the Constitution, their statements are completely worthless. Hence, Antonin Scalia’s BLISTERING dissent holding that the federal exchanges established by the ACA were secretly designed not to insure anybody was right, and arguments to the contrary are pure applesauce-pokery, QED. Hopefully, that clears things up.
*See “IOKIYAR” [unpublished and unwritten memo], Roberts, C.J., 2/9/2017.