It might once Gruber testifies before Congress, because what he says, on top of what he's already said, will be admissible evidence in Halbig.
I know you've been lighting candles and praying for this, but what will you do if you're disappointed?
Nobody can call garamet on her bullshit as much as you. flashlight has been a good substitute, but not as entertaining.
I find it both sad and quaint that you're still enough of a misogynist that you believe calling someone a "lady" is an insult.
@John Castle, now that you're here, perhaps you can succeed where your acolyte has failed: http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2670890/ Or if you've got a lot of time on your hands, maybe you can take a shot at edumacating @The Flashlight on...well, anything. What a "house name" is, table manners, toilet training. Feel free to start small with him. Or you can just do your usual thing. Thought you might appreciate a fresh start.
We can't expect the Shrieking Loons to give a toss about how the PPACA affects anyone but themselves (and of course the two shrieking the loudest aren't affected in any material way whatsoever), but there's a perfect example of how broken the old "system" was in its impact on a member of WF, who amassed such crippling medical-related debt that he was unable to marry his fiancee because she would inherit that debt when he died. These are real people, representing hundreds of thousands of real situations. This individual in particular was a guy the Shriekers knew and - we assume - cared about, but apparently it's hard to care about anyone else when you're too busy screaming "Me, ME, MEEEEEE!!!11!"
Watch the upcoming SCOTUS decision, and remember how "symbolic" you think Gruber's beating today was. The PP/ACA was a scam from the outset. That's why it was engineered the way it was, and Gruber has admitted that. Just what all the "shriekers" have been saying? Gruber is on tape admitting we were all absolutely correct.
The Supreme Court decision won't have anything to do with this. The case involves a mistake in the language which is against the clear intent of the overall legislation.
How do you justify calling it a "mistake" in the language when Gruber himself has said on multiple occasions that it was deliberate?