The number of conservatives who were able to convince themselves not merely that a typo should be taken out of context and used to willfully misread a statute but that the ACA’s federal exchange
Dan Wetzel — who has been consistently excellent on the story — has the definitive Ballghazi analysis: Oh, Roger had it all in his hands back in May. Kraft magnanimously/foolishly dropped
Patterico argues that federal judges not abiding by the tenets of ACA tooferism is not merely wrong, it’s an impeachable offense: I would support all manner of reactions that the GOP will lack t
Nice to see the conspiracy theories already heating up already. The reviews of Scalia’s dissent continue to come in. (Tushnet has been on this beat for a while, and his analysis looks more p
We’ve discussed the politics of the Supreme Court announcing that the card says “Moops!” extensively. But what if the Court correctly interprets the statute? Here, I agree with B
Conservatives are whining about Obama offering criticisms of the argument that Spain was invaded by the Moops. And I guess if you were making that argument you wouldn’t want it subject to any sc
On the one hand, this is useful reporting: Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan CBO at the time of the law’s drafting and passage, says the idea that the subsidies would be limited to sta
The political play for congressional Republicans should the Supreme Court go Moopy is pretty obvious. Pass a bill that temporarily extends subsidies to the federally established state exchanges while