really big.  A brief rundown.

from Pete Suderman

1. The plain language of the relevant statute is undeniably clear. The D.C. Circuit essentially concluded that the government could not provide a good enough legal rationale for ignoring the plain meaning of the text. Even the Fourth Circuit, which held that the subsidies are authorized under the law, admitted that the challengers had a point about the particular language governing subsidies: "The plaintiffs’ primary rationale for their interpretation is that the language says what it says, and that it clearly mentions state-run Exchanges….If Congress meant to include federally-run Exchanges, it would not have specifically chosen the word 'state' or referenced [the section of the law dealing specifically with state-based exchanges]." The ruling goes on to say that "the court cannot ignore the common-sense appeal of the plaintiffs’ argument; a literal reading of the statute undoubtedly accords more closely with their position." This is the position of the court that ultimately sided with the administration. In other words, only through a more expansive, non-literal reading can one side with the administration’s approach.

2. The challenge is legitimate. As with the challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate, which ultimately lost at the Supreme Court, the health law’s backers and the liberal legal community had long argued that the argument made by the challengers was more or less meritless. The win in the D.C. Circuit makes clear that it is not, and even the Fourth Circuit ruling concedes that it is a tough call, saying that "the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations" and only coming to its conclusion by "applying deference to the IRS’s determination." Basically, the government won not because it was obviously in the right, but because it got the benefit of the doubt.

3. Another court has ruled that the president is breaking the law. The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled against the administration in a variety of cases this year, including the Hobby Lobby decision regarding Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate, the administration’s interpretation of chemical weapons law, and the president’s recess appointment powers. The theme of these cases is clear: that the Obama administration had overstepped the bounds of its authority. The same goes for the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Halbig. One of the messages of the decision is that the Obama administration had no authority to offer subsidies through the federally run exchanges, that the IRS was not within its legal rights to authorize those credits, and that the executive branch has broken the law in making those subsidies available.

a few other takes:

Halbig v. Burwell: Plain Language Trumps 'Purpose' and 'Intent'

A Major Defeat for the IRS and Victory for Common Sense in Halbig v. Burwell

an then theres Gruber - the guy who WROTE the damned thing.  His name is soon to enter the vocabulary - Grubering.

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges (Updated With Another Admission)

Thaddeus Russell on How "Crazy Negroes" With Guns Helped Kill Jim Crow

MA Police Chiefs Want 'Sole Discretion' to Decide Who May Own a Long Gun

ADVICE FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK: “Smoking is healthier than fascism.”

excerpted from Gregory Pine:

Rights are generally conceived as a matter of entitlement. Now, one is entitled to something for a reason. Typically one retains a right to something because of some recognizable dimension of the claimant. For instance, because I am a human being, I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a natural right. Or, because I am a citizen of the United States at least 18 years old, I can vote in the next election. This is a legal right.

Those who argue for a right to universal contraceptive coverage found their claims on the natural right of equality. But equality, when divested of the legitimate recognition of difference, becomes a frenzied pursuit of leveling in every aspect of material human existence.

Hilda Solis, Obama’s former labor secretary, might be in deep trouble.

COVERUP: The Hill: IRS: Lerner’s hard drive was wiped clean in 2011.

IRS Official Says Even More Employees Had Computer Problems, May Not Be Able to Comply With Congressional Subpoenas

IRS Might Have Lerner's 'Missing' Emails Saved

A COVERUP UNDER EVERY ROCK: White House Fights to Keep Shirley Sherrod Emails Secret: Admin says public does not have ‘any need for access to those documents.’ Yeah, that’s not the standard, guys.

Wait...IRS Backup Tapes of Lois Lerner's Email May Exist After All?

 Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma) Defines Today’s Progressivism

1. “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

2. “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

3. “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

4. “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

5. “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

6. “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

7. “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

8. “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

9. “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

10. “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

11. “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

Here are a few questions for Warren.

1.  Since you are willing to fight for stronger rules and tougher enforcement for Wall Street, are you willing to fight for an end to government bail-outs?

2. How will an increase in the minimum wage help those who can’t get any job because of the minimum wage?

3. Why is the federal government borrowing at a low interest rate and then charging the students a much higher rate? How can it be right to make a profit off the students and then apply it to the federal budget under a line called “ deficit reduction.”

4. Since you hold that “equal means equal… in all of America,” why do federal programs discriminate in favor of one group over another?

5. If corporations are not people, does that mean the government can not only tell them what to do, but even gag them or tell them what to say?