King v Burwell

It's the 17th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

Post Reply
User avatar
Atomic Punk
antagonist
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: El Segundo, CA

Re: King v Burwell

Post by Atomic Punk »

Meanwhile, the electorate is worried if their cell phones are charged enough for the next few hours of texting.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.

Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
User avatar
Wolfman
Dumpater Artist
Posts: 7167
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:16 pm
Location: SW FL

Re: King v Burwell

Post by Wolfman »

To be honest, when I first saw the title of this (King vs. Burwell) I thought it would be about an MMA fight on TV. Silly me. Now I think we need a T1B virtual version with 88 vs. Jsc810.
"It''s not dark yet--but it's getting there". -- Bob Dylan

Carbon Dating, the number one dating app for senior citizens.

"Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teaches my hands to the war, and my fingers to fight."
User avatar
FLW Buckeye
2014 T1B FBBL Champ
Posts: 1396
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:14 am

Re: King v Burwell

Post by FLW Buckeye »

Wolfman wrote:Now I think we need a T1B virtual version with 88 vs. Jsc810.

Personally, Moving Saul vs Johnny S. Cochran 810 is a much better draw.
“Hey! You scratched my anchor!”
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12009
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: King v Burwell

Post by mvscal »

FLW Buckeye wrote: Moving Saul
:lol:
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Moving Sale

Re: King v Burwell

Post by Moving Sale »

"[t]he State" means the government in my book, so this is an easy one for me.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: King v Burwell

Post by Dinsdale »

Moving Sale wrote:"[t]he State" means the government in my book, so this is an easy one for me.
Seems like "the State" was intentionally ambiguous, so the law could be redefined down the road.

But hey, they had to vote for it to see what was in it.

But in a law that directly addressed state exchanges and what individual states could and couldn't do, referring to the National Government as "The State" seems disingenuous.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Moving Sale

Re: King v Burwell

Post by Moving Sale »

Actually the law says "the State." I think if it said "The State" I would have an even better argument.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12009
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: King v Burwell

Post by mvscal »

88 wrote:...unless you want to ignore what the law says.
That is a simple matter of routine for this "administration."
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Moving Sale

Re: King v Burwell

Post by Moving Sale »

The National Government established the Exchange under 1311 when they said all individual States "shall" established an Exchange. Some will need to be run by the National Government as noted in 1321. The tax credit goes to all people that are in Exchanges run by their individual State or run in an individual State by the National Government, the individual State and the National Government are collective, or individually, known as the State, or sometimes the Federal Government. I can do this all day, which is a statement you can apparently not make when you don't even know the difference between the National Government and Federal Government. :grin: :doh:
Post Reply