OBAMACARE FAIL CO-ARCHITECT JONATHAN GRUBER NOW SAYS HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED WHEN HE SPEAKS IN PUBLIC

So of Peter Suderman Reason.com picked up on the reality that Jonathan Gruber, one of the Ivory sandbox academia architects of the failure that is Obamacare, spoke in public to say that subsidies for individuals would be paid through state exchanges only.

Here is a clip of the college professor, Gruber, from the fantasy land that is academia saying so:





Gruber pulls the same defense as the Obama adminstration has done in these court battles. As Obama admin lawyers have argued that Congressmen intended to include subsidies through U.S. run exchanges, soo too, Gruber intended to say the right words to justify the failure of law that is Obamacare.


How can Gruber live with himself? Lying is such an unmanly, cowardly trait.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that subsidies to pay anyone's Obamacare medical insurance bill can be had only through exchanges established by a state in which that one lives. In short, the court affirmed what Gruber said publicly. Thus, anyone living in a state without an exchange no longer can receive subsidies for their Obamacare medical insurance. The ruling only affects U.S. citizens living in any of the 50 U.S. states and D.C. but not any U.S. territory such as American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, as the latter have been disqualified from Obamacare.

Also last week, clueless judge, Andre Davis of the Fourth Circuit (Richmond), ruled that subsidies could be had through U.S. run exchanges for citizens in states where states failed to establish exchanges. Davis provided this wacked out wrong analogy for his ruling:

"If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would  be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who  returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order.

That is  this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange. "

If what Davis claims is true, then this this would be true:

I task a friend to be my best man for my upcoming wedding. I instruct him hire a limousine for the wedding party of six.   On the day of the wedding, a Fiat 500 shows up. The best man says to me, "Limo schimo. The intent of driving you from point A to B is the same whether in a limo or this Fiat 500. Besides I saved you a hundreds."  

My bride sees it differently, feeling abased. So she withholds sex during the entire the honeymoon. 

In short, Davis ruled that  merely because it's not written in this law and by extension, any law, any agency of the executive branch can make it up as they go along. Of course, Davis is wrong for reasons of jurisprudence, specifically, power and authority as well as rights and duty.

If agencies can make up stuff as they go along, why have any law at all? And what then of the Constitution, which is a compact of states specifically detailing what rights and duties Congress and the executive have to both states and to any individuals per the first ten amendments, why have a Constitution at all?

Davis ought to consider resigning from the court and getting out of law altogether. Davis doesn't seem to understand reality.