punishing those who voted for Obama and to destroy his legacy.

And when they do this, I want to know why our reaction should not be SEVERE

by republicans, and will hurt those people the worse

Only those states that refused to setup an exchange, will lose it

Ironically, KY won't because they signed on to the ACA, expanded Medicare and have their own exchanges

The argument is the Feds cannot directly provide the subsidies because of 4 words referring to the state, which is a distortion of the intent

In addition, the assholes bringing this to the SC are not even affected by it, which is another reason the court should not have accepted the case

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7604518

although if they let that moron Thomas write an opinion, it's not looking good.

He'll sign it...you know, with a big X...since he really can't read or write.

It's poorly thought out and not thought through, conforming more to Ayn Rand than to the constitution, a problem with the whole bunch of conservative goons on the bench.

If the court applies normal rules of statutory construction, there will be no issue as to the ruling.

he's quoting from a unanimous 2004 SCOTUS decision in a bankruptcy case, Lamie v. United States Trustee. His decision wasn't based on that case: the quote was a single reference to it near the end of the opinion.

He did not mention the Lamie opinion's main point, which said that "The statute is awkward, and even ungrammatical; but that does not make it ambiguous on the point at issue." I think that a major part of the argument by the government in Burwell was that a reading of the statute in its entirety, despite that one friggin' sentence on which the challenge was based, indicated that it never intended to limit the subsidies only to participants in the state exchanges.

He and Scalia have been known to make snarky comments to their 'brethren' in dissents. It happened in some of their written dissents this term when the majority refused to stay lower fed court rulings invalidating anti-marriage equality statutes.

IMO, Burwell will come down CJ Roberts and why he decided in 2012 to uphold the individual mandate, against what people had expected from him, and using a rationale that no one had argued in court. No one knows what happened there. If he had some kind of epiphany regarding people's need to have access to health care, one hopes it continues.

We'll know soon enough!

was taught by Lawrence Tribes. I think a couple days before the ACA ruling in 2012, Tribes wrote an article stating why Roberts would rule in favor of ACA.