Who said Obama lacked experience?  Fresh from his decision that Congress is unnecessary,  permitting him to do whatever he wants without legislation, this week, Il Duce Obama decided he also has the power to control the docket of the Supreme Court.  Obama was in Europe, visiting with representatives of the failed socialist regimes he so much admires, a/k/a, the G7.  There, Il Duce weighed in on the upcoming Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, which he proclaimed, the Court should never have considered.  In that case, the issue is the interpretation of the laughably named, Affordable Care Act, a/k/a, Obamacare, specifically the provisions for federal subsidies to people in the various States.  Before your eyes glaze over,  unlike most of the thousands of pages of statutes and regulations that make up the Leviathan called Obamacare,  this particular issue is not that complicated.  In a nutshell, Obamacare created a system whereby the various States were to set up healthcare exchanges to provide coverage.  Federal exchanges were created in case a State did not set up its own exchange.  36 States chose not to do so.  Now, because the healthcare mandated by the Affordable Care Act is really not affordable, the statute made provision to provide lower income people “in State exchanges” with federal subsidies, i.e., tax money to pay the premiums for the unaffordable coverage.  Therein lies the rub.  The statute specifies that subsidies may be paid to those “in State exchanges.”  The law says nothing about subsidies to those in federal exchanges.  Il Duce, who fancies himself a law professor (he never actually was, but that’s another story), claims that it’s clear that, regardless of what the law says, it must mean that subsidies can be paid to those in federal exchanges too.  He then lectured the Supreme Court on statutory interpretation based on legislative intent.  Two things.  First, since he thinks Congress is unnecessary, who cares about legislative intent.  Secondly, Il Duce, a/k/a il professore, a/k/a community organizer, is wrong again.  A court doesn’t get to the intent of the legislature unless the language of the law is ambiguous.  The government claims the word “State” in the law means “the state,” in other words, any government.  Two problems there.  First, the law refers to “the States,” which even a community organizer should understand means those inconvenient little entities that created the federal government.  More importantly however, when the law itself defines a term, the Court does not resort to interpretation.  Obamacare defines “State” as “the 50 States and the District of Columbia.”  Seems pretty clear to me.   Let’s see if at least five Justices can figure it out.