I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so the terms may be off, but that is the simple concept.
And yes, Congressional (aka political) intent does matter - a string of court cases confirm it. And this is just a MAJOR part of the law. I didn't read all of Scalia's dissent - skimmed it - but I'm almost certain he can't point to a single minute of testimony by anyone in Congress in support of or in opposition to denying credits to states who don't establish exchanges. The reason is EVERYONE, including the states themselves, assumed that credits would be available on the Federal exhanges. Everyone. Until some eagle eye read the law and found this drafting.... oddity. It's just inconceivable that such a major provision was the subject of no debate and was intentionally written so vaguely that no one knew about it until many months after the bill was passed and signed.
This is really disappointing.. I mean, I can read, and at worst I was suspecting that the SC would send it back to congress to fix, NOT interpret intent.. To me, that is not the role of the SCOTUS, and never has been. Sending it back for revision was the right call, unfortunately the robes got this one very wrong.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
when they realized this the IRS re-wrote the bill (unconstitutional IRS doesn't have power) and began issuing tax subsidies to everyone.
the majority got it wrong and Roberts is a hack that should be removed a this point. He was supposed to uphold the constitution and he has failed to do so 2 times in the name of politics.
him and the rest of them should be arrested and removed from the bench for failure to do their job and uphold the constitution.
no the 3 dissenters got it right.
from Scalia who got it right.
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges…Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case.
that is 100% correct. words mean nothing anymore.
The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means.
Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges…The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.
correct the majority in his court rewrote the law unconstitutional in and of itself.
Justice Antonin Scalia on Obamacare ruling: ‘Words no longer have meaning’Justice Antonin Scalia on Obamacare ruling: ‘Words no longer have meaning’
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
I work and pay taxes--last year I paid ~$28k between income and payroll tax.Originally Posted by ludin
But they have the power of interpretation, thereby deciding the cases in question - and those cases have HUGE ramifications.
And let's not forget the very basics: they solely get to chose (or not) the cases they pick-up! They have a lot of discretion in what they do, and once they rule, where do you appeal?
These guys are powerful!