What’s more in the 4th<\/sup> Circuit’s opinion has an assent that absolutely nails the amazing level of hackitude in the DC Circuit’s opinion:<\/p>\n In fact, Appellants\u2019 reading is not literal; it\u2019s 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. National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 666 (2007). 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\u2019s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino\u2019s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order<\/span><\/b>. 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. The premium tax credit calculation subprovision later specifies certain conditions regarding state-run Exchanges, but that does not mean that a<\/span>
literal reading of that provision somehow precludes its applicability to substitute federally-run Exchanges or erases the contingency provision out of the statute.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![](\"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/hcdUt37.gif\")
<\/a>Seriously, conservative Judges will take any cockamamie fringe idea that some desperate for tenure right law professor, desperate for tenure can scrawl on a bathroom wall, and they are running with it.<\/p>\n