Quote:

---

Timothy Jost, a health policy expert at Washington and Lee University School of Law, said the plaintiffs’ argument “made no sense from the beginning.”

“Congress clearly did not mean to exclude residents of two-thirds of the states from premium tax credits,” he said. “Judge Friedman had little trouble finding that the statute clearly authorizes premium tax credits to be granted through federal exchanges … His reasoning is persuasive, and will be upheld by the appellate court.”
Other legal experts were even more dismissive of the case.

“This definitely was the right decision,” said Abigail Moncrieff, a professor at Boston University School of Law. “This case is pure silliness.” Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/15/federal-judge-finds-fa
vor-obama-administration-cru/#ixzz2qWv20mtW

---

Quote:

---

"A state-run Exchange is not an end in and of itself, but rather a mechanism intended to facilitate the purchase of affordable health insurance," Friedman wrote. "And there is evidence throughout the statute of Congress's desire to ensure broad access to affordable health coverage. It makes little sense to assume that Congress sacrificed nationwide availability of the tax credit... in an attempt to promote state-run Exchanges."

"Today's ruling is a win for common sense," said a statement from Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "The plaintiffs' argument was based on an implausible reading of the statute and a fabricated history of congressional intent. It is gratifying but unsurprising that the court rejected their claims." http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/01/obamacare_critics_lose
_in_ruli.html

---