Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Lisa Kelly
Lisa's posts

Post has attachment
What a ridiculous thing to assert. "Roberts clearly doesn't care about words' actual meanings" this sounds like something an angry twelve year old would say. The article itself does a pretty impressive job at trying to twist around words to resemble a cogent point. In reality trying to overturn a law that is so complex based on the "Mother-May-I" criteria is absurd. Because there is a technicality - a possible ambiguity - in an 11,000 document we're supposed to throw out all the work on creating a healthcare law that this country desperately needs? This idiotic 'You didn't say what you thought you said!" argument that a team of well paid lawyers brought to the court should never have wasted anyone's time. It would have been a gross injustice to the way our democracy is supposed to work to have politically motivated lawyers derail a law that everyone needs, millions of people depend on, and thousands of people have worked on. It's amazing what pure hubris and animus can do if it's extremely well funded.
This article tries to pretend that others are denying a single word's meaning. If only the author could understand that in combination with the rest of the 381,516 words in the ACA , an idea is described that would make only one interpretation of the chosen word possible.  Thinking is harder that defining, but it's worth doing, Mr. Holmes.
Wait while more posts are being loaded