Even though the Supreme Court already heard a case about Obamacare and told opponents that sorry, it IS legal, stop whining, the Court has decided, not unlike the Republicans in Congress who can't stop trying to repeal, to give it another shot. [contextly_sidebar id="X3z9GTbJhhSpZxU5PVjUThJt3uE6CWyt"]
I am going to sue them because they didn't tell us WHAT KIND OF FISHSTICKS THE HURSTS LIKE. I am no lawer, but this is definitely a violation of my 11th Amendment rights, because of you can arrange fish sticks to look like an 11.
Makes about as much sense as these people getting their case in front of the Supreme Court
None of these "Plaintiff" lackwits can even understand what HCA does, let alone the part about how the exchanges are supposedly not correct. Let alone be able to afford the raft of attorneys that will be representing them, in a case without any damages. These people could pool their income for the next 3 years and they'd never be able to pay the legal fees that are being covered by these political groups. They won the legal lottery, they've been given a nice free leg to stand on!
I hope you get so much nasty stanky argle all up in your bargle just by listening to these dipshit arguments, Scalia, that your robes smell like expired Doritos belches forevermore.
Hey, but at least there's some deep pocketed political interests out there looking out for people who can be pretty much exploited to game loopholes in the system!
But as long as it hurts that there Obammer, it doesn't matter if it hurts millions of other Americans in the process, because, (left blank because these people can't even explain the "justice" they seek, or how they managed to afford it)
What would happen to the lawsuit if the plaintiffs all died? I'm thinking they sound like an unhealthy bunch, probably with a metric fuckton of pre-existing conditions among them, and of course there's always the chance their daily ration of rage could suddenly go nuclear on 'em.
actually, our streak of anti intellectualism and wingnuttery have been with us the whole time. the advent of mass communications has just made it easier to manipulate the idjits
&quot;<b>Congress provided a backup scheme</b>; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.&quot; -- Justice Scalia; dissent in <i>NFIB v. Sebelius</i>
&quot;Yeah, I said that then, but my right-wing ideology requires that, in this case, Congress did <b>NOT </b>intend to provide a backup scheme.&quot; -- Justice Scalia; private thoughts as he rationalizes his opinion in <i>King v. Burwell</i>
&quot;they&#039;ve been given a nice free leg to stand on.&quot;
More like a free leg booting them in the ass, very hard. They have no clue that if their attorneys win, they lose, big time. A state bar ethics panel might have fun with the fuckers who claim to be litigating &quot;on behalf of&quot; these poor schlubs.
I am going to sue them because they didn&#039;t tell us WHAT KIND OF FISHSTICKS THE HURSTS LIKE. I am no lawer, but this is definitely a violation of my 11th Amendment rights, because of you can arrange fish sticks to look like an 11.
Makes about as much sense as these people getting their case in front of the Supreme Court
None of these &quot;Plaintiff&quot; lackwits can even understand what HCA does, let alone the part about how the exchanges are supposedly not correct. Let alone be able to afford the raft of attorneys that will be representing them, in a case without any damages. These people could pool their income for the next 3 years and they&#039;d never be able to pay the legal fees that are being covered by these political groups. They won the legal lottery, they&#039;ve been given a nice free leg to stand on!
I hope you get so much nasty stanky argle all up in your bargle just by listening to these dipshit arguments, Scalia, that your robes smell like expired Doritos belches forevermore.
Hey, but at least there&#039;s some deep pocketed political interests out there looking out for people who can be pretty much exploited to game loopholes in the system!
But as long as it hurts that there Obammer, it doesn&#039;t matter if it hurts millions of other Americans in the process, because, (left blank because these people can&#039;t even explain the &quot;justice&quot; they seek, or how they managed to afford it)
Pffft, at a resort? They&#039;d d spend that on coffee
Reagan/Bush appointees
What would happen to the lawsuit if the plaintiffs all died? I&#039;m thinking they sound like an unhealthy bunch, probably with a metric fuckton of pre-existing conditions among them, and of course there&#039;s always the chance their daily ration of rage could suddenly go nuclear on &#039;em.
actually, our streak of anti intellectualism and wingnuttery have been with us the whole time. the advent of mass communications has just made it easier to manipulate the idjits
&quot; that your robes smell like expired Doritos belches forevermore. &quot;
they already do...
But you repeat yourself.
Oh the irony of Rose having Luck as a last name.
Does Obamacare cover witch testing?
Did pulling it far too the right and down make it go backwards?
&quot;<b>Congress provided a backup scheme</b>; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.&quot; -- Justice Scalia; dissent in <i>NFIB v. Sebelius</i>
&quot;Yeah, I said that then, but my right-wing ideology requires that, in this case, Congress did <b>NOT </b>intend to provide a backup scheme.&quot; -- Justice Scalia; private thoughts as he rationalizes his opinion in <i>King v. Burwell</i>
Sincerely?
Derp imitates art.
Any one of them dying for lack of insurance would be comedy gold. And the assholes at CEI would be oblivious to the irony.
&quot;they&#039;ve been given a nice free leg to stand on.&quot;
More like a free leg booting them in the ass, very hard. They have no clue that if their attorneys win, they lose, big time. A state bar ethics panel might have fun with the fuckers who claim to be litigating &quot;on behalf of&quot; these poor schlubs.