抖阴ap

Justice John Roberts (Associated Press/Nati Harnik, file)

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts鈥� legal reasoning in the Affordable Care Act case was troubling, to say the least. Regarding the question of subsidies to policy holders not covered by a state health care exchange, the language in the act was unambiguous — they鈥檙e not eligible. More so, this was not a product of sloppy drafting. The intent was to bribe states to set up their own health care networks as a condition of receiving federal subsidies for their constituents.

What Roberts did was overturn the Law of Unintended Consequences. Apparently, the plain language of law doesn鈥檛 really count in his mind. Fortunately, the Law of Gravity is not subject to his torturous legal review; otherwise, we may find ourselves floating to who knows where.

Ken Maxey, Arvada

This letter was published in the July 3 edition.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the president抖阴ap intent to subsidize all Americans trumps the plain language of the Affordable Care Act, shouldn鈥檛 his intent to let you keep your health plan, keep your doctor and save $2,500 a year be enforced, regardless of the plain provisions of the act?


Let the lawsuits (and the resultant contortions of the Supreme Court) begin.

Vernon Andrews, Aurora

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.