Yeah, I'm as surprised that I'm posting as you are. But I was reading the opening arguments in King vs. Burwell, and I don't think I can summarize what I'm thinking into 140 characters. And I definitely don't see any good coming from posting it to Facebook.
My question is this. If Justice Kennedy thinks that overturning the subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges will introduce unconstitutional coercion, then is it the Supreme Court decision that is introducing that unconstitutionality, or can it then be ascribed back to the original Affordable Care Act itself? And would that, in turn, make it possible for the whole law to be struck down as unconstitutional?
Of course, I have comments turned off now, so this is more of a rhetorical question. But it's one that had nowhere else to go.