When a federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama is ruling in favor of Obamacare subsidies, as was the case in Virginia on Tuesday, how does that judge take a swipe at Obamacare opponents?
With a pizza analogy, of course.
In the 3-0 ruling, Judge Andre M. Davis tossed this gem out there:
“In fact, Appellants’ reading is not literal; it’s cramped. No case stands for the proposition that literal readings should take place in a vacuum, acontextually, and untethered from other parts of the operative text; indeed, the case law indicates the opposite. … So does common sense: If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order. That is this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange.”
Here’s the full ruling:
h/t: Talking Points Memo
