Chief Justice Roberts has been a disgrace, in my view, in that he has in effect practiced the equivalent of jury nullification. He has taken his position and substituted his own personal viewpoint on the validity of law for an actual interpretation of the law as written.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
And it's more of a stretch that this feature - failure of the subsidy in states with Fed exchanges - was so well hidden that it took months and some eagle eyed citizen to catch. None of the states knew it when they decided whether or not to establish exchanges. If the Congress intended such a draconian result to attach to the decision to let the Feds operate the exchange, a plausible interpretation is that they would have clearly outlined such a result instead of hinging it on splitting hairs between "by a state" versus "by the Feds on behalf of the state". That they did not is strong evidence that the subsidy failure for those states was a drafting error and not an intended result. And when faced with the failure of a law based on a drafting error the SC is required to read the law and its intent as a whole and sustain the law.
Last edited by JasperL; 06-25-15 at 10:59 AM.
Seems very fair to me.
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"
The ultimate point of the Supreme Court is to decide on the merit of a challenge based the case made vs. the wording of the law in question and that case made. It is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to determine what should happen when the government *thinks* something should have happened according to legislative plan, but did not for whatever reason.
ACA as written is very explicit in what tax credits and subsidies are to be applied to, and in seven separate parts of ACA it explicitly says "Exchange established by the State." What ACA does *not* say about tax credits and subsidies is an exchange established by the State or the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The dissenting opinion is right, the Federal argument should have failed forcing Congressional remedy for the mistake made.
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.