re: #14 Mike Lamb

Also, I was considering Charles’ comment last night re: the Gruber video being coordinated with SCOTUS accepting cert on federal exchange cases in order to “poison the well.” I agree with that analysis, but I think it might be even more targeted than initially thought—I think the video may have been in direct response to the editorial written by the Congresspersons that wrote the bill. The editorial talked about their specific intent to allow for federal exchanges/subsidies despite the small flaw in the language of the bill. The Gruber video seems tailor made for Alito or Scalia to use as ammunition to argue that there was an intent to deceive the public, so why should any weight be placed on the drafters’ intent?

But aren’t “originalist” justices all about the drafters’ intent?
//