You are just making things up. Where do you get the Federal Exchange was meant for "small states"? The reality is that the 1311 and 1321 distinction was referenced numerous places in the law, and the law as written was meant to coax states to make their own exchanges.
No I'm not. Clearly the law intended for the creation of a Federal exchange to act as the portal for residents of states who did not create their own exchanges, for whatever reason (small is just one possible reason). There is no doubt about this - the law provided for a deadline, and if a state didn't notify the Feds that it was going to create an exchange, the Feds would include that state in the Federally run exchange. And there is NOTHING in the law or legislative history that suggests the drafters intended for credits to be available only on state exchanges.
Furthermore, you say the law as written was intended to 'coax' states into creating their own, but there is NO legislative history to that effect. If you think there is, cite it.
Wrong. The slippery slope in this case is allowing government agencies the ability to rewrite law without congress.
You're wrong. The courts are often called to interpret conflicting provisions of a law - they happen with some regularity. So all the court is asked to do here is interpret a conflict and decide how to resolve the conflict, and it's clear from past cases how they do that - look at the law as a whole and decide the conflict consistent with the law as a whole and the intent of Congress when drafting it. You simply cannot point to anything that indicates Congress INTENDED to deny subsidies to states who didn't set up their own exchanges. No one who's being intellectually honest asserts this - the law was INTENDED to make affordable insurance available to people in all 50 states.
The solution to a ruling against the Federal Government, and in no way is it a slippery slope, is for the congress to not be morons when they write laws. Maybe instead of an unruly 2000 page bill that they can't read they pass it in pieces that they have time to read.
That's not saying much of anything. Drafting errors or conflicts happen all the time - it's part of the sausage making. The reason we have courts is to resolve those problems.
But as I said earlier, that is assuming the bill wasn't written as intended. The reason why the bill was written the way was because Democrats wanted the coax states to create their own Exchanges. It backfired on them and now they want to claim that they are just idiots instead.
No, democrats INTENDED to make the subsidies available to anyone, whether or not the state established an exchange, which is why the law provided for a Federally run exchange.
He didn't "rewrite" the law, he struck down the provision in the law that was unconstitutional. State participation and level of participation in Medicaid was always voluntary, the PPACA tried to make the program an all or nothing proposition.
Of course, states could elect to NOT accept any Medicaid money. But to get money, they had to meet Federal guidelines. So their level of participation had to meet Medicaid guidelines. My own state didn't like the Federal Medicaid program, so asked for and
got permission to set up an alternative to Medicaid, but they couldn't DEMAND the money without meeting Medicaid guidelines - they asked for a concession, worked with Medicaid, and then were permitted to try an alternative. Same as highway money, and all other sources of funding. Congress says, "Here's some rules, if you abide by them, we give you money." Roberts et al said the Supremes got to set the rules and amended the ACA.