Mendacious Asshat Scott Lemieux is the Biggest 'ACA Troofer' on the Far-Left Obamabot Deep-Bench

The idiot far-left nutjob Scott Lemieux has been on a deranged jihad against the plaintiffs and supporters of the lawsuit challenging the ObamaCare subsidies that's before the Supreme Court today. He's been libeling them as "troofers" since the case made the docket. Obviously, the stupid name-calling smears are an attempt to turn reality into fiction, but that's the MO of LWNJ totalitarians.

For a timely corrective, see the Wall Street Journal, "The Plain Text of ObamaCare":

The Obama Administration’s abuse of executive power—dispensing with its duty to faithfully execute statutes to become a law maker unto itself—has become the most consequential dispute across the three branches of government. The Supreme Court rejoins this debate on Wednesday with oral arguments in the challenge to the White House’s illegal Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Unlike the 2012 ObamaCare cases, King v. Burwell is not a challenge to the constitutionality of the health law. To the contrary, the plaintiffs are asking the Justices to vindicate the law’s plain text and uphold the statute that Congress passed in 2010, rather than the version the Administration rewrote.

***
The Affordable Care Act authorized insurance subsidies though “an Exchange established by the State,” and only through those exchanges. King will answer whether the Administration can also disburse such subsidies through the exchanges run by the federal government in two-thirds of the country in order to solve a self-created problem.

The law’s Democratic drafters wanted the states to participate and assumed all of them eventually would, much as with Medicaid and many other familiar programs under cooperative federalism. Conditioning subsidies on state action was meant to give Governors and legislatures an irresistible incentive to contribute to ObamaCare’s implementation and lend political legitimacy. In return, their constituents were eligible for benefits.

This routine legislative arrangement turned out to be an epic political miscalculation. The opposition to ObamaCare failed to ebb as liberals expected, and 36 states refused the invitation to create exchanges. In those states, the law provides for a federal exchange fallback—without subsidies.

Then in 2012 the Internal Revenue Service simply declared that subsidies would be available in both the state-run and federal exchanges. In its rule-making the IRS noted that “commentators disagreed on whether the language . . . limits the availability of the premium tax credit only to taxpayers who enroll in qualified health plans on State Exchanges,” conceding the controversy but offering no legal justification for nationwide subsidies.

In King, the High Court will scrutinize this IRS decree using the traditional canons of statutory construction. The English language is clear: Congress wrote that subsidies would be available on state exchanges only, so Washington cannot deputize itself as the 51st state—especially when the black-letter law is as consistent, tightly worded and cross-referenced as the Affordable Care Act...

Still more.