The government's reply to the ACA troofers has been submitted, and as you would expect it's devastating. Section I should be sufficient in itself -- it is clear simply reading the statute properly that exchanges established by HHS are "exchanges established by the State" as...
Search Results Found For : "moops"
Sarah Kliff and Kevin Drum have good discussions of Theda Skocpol's important study of congressional intent and the federal exchanges established by the ACA. Skocpol's bottom line: Throughout hard-fought debates.
How will the horrible consequences of a Supreme Court ruling that the Moops invaded Spain affect Kennedy and Roberts? Beats me: Saying that judges are pragmatists in practice, however, doesn't.
Since Dahlia Lithwick and Barry Freidman cite me (not inaccurately!) as a "purveyor of doom" based on my analysis of the Supreme Court's cert grant in King v. Burwell, it's worth given even stronger consideration than usual to the always extant possibility that things aren't...
You may be aware of the latest ACA faux scandal, conveniently timed to distract people from the now very real possibility that the Supreme Court will use deeply silly arguments.
It's not every day that the Roberts Court can be worse than even I expect, but here we are: the Court is about to rule that the Moops invaded Spain..
As you would expect, an excellent analysis. Particularly worth emphasis: Flash back to December 2010, when the Commerce Clause challenges to the new law were beginning to fill the legal pipeline en route to the Supreme Court. At a conference held at the American Enterprise...
The premise of the Halbig majority is that if close attention to isolated textual clauses produces an outcome that will cause millions of people to lose health care coverage, "with.
I first saw it in non-Twitter form here, but Simon Maloy apparently deserves the credit for inventing the "Moops" analogy to describe the Halbig litigation. And not only was his.
Nice catch by Abbe Gluck: It is no secret that the people bringing the challenge to the Obamacare subsidies in the Halbig and King cases—challenges now seeking review from both the full D.C. federal appellate bench and the U.S. Supreme Court after federal appellate courts...
I didn't know this until Josh Marshall tweeted it while linking to his site's devastating rebuttal to Halbig trooferism, but Johnathan Turley is one of the troofers. He presents us.
Sean Davis believes he has actual new evidence to support the particularly wingnutty theory that millions of people should be denied health care coverage not merely because the card says.