home
one could (and probably will) argue that the (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 02:52:16 PM EST
Individuals offended by the tax credits being offered in a federal health insurance exchange can just not use it if they wish. There is no injury. Making the "unfettered choice" clear.

injury is the use of their tax dollars (the credit), in a way they deem not fit, thereby reducing the tax dollars available for use, in a manner they deem more appropriate (the "injury"). it's the "guns v butter" argument: the money spent on guns, cannot then be used to purchase butter.

will this find a willing ear in the roberts' court? i have no clue, but it does meet (however poorly) the basic requirements noted above.

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft