here's one thing i don't get that i haven't seen discussed.
roberts' bit about "they intended to improve the health care market - not destroy it" (paraphrasing); and all the other talk about how invalidating the fed subsidies would be "disruptive" and therefore the SC shouldn't rule against the government here because of the "chaos" that such a ruling would cause...
what about the original implementation of the law? estimates of somewhere north of 5-6 million people got thrown off their existing plans (despite administration assurances to the contrary) because of the law passing in the first place?
it seems like it was fine to disrupt the marketplace to implement this, but somehow it is an unthinkable horror to disrupt the marketplace to remove pieces of it? i don't get it
and in the end, we're talking about paperwork. only in rare and tragic cases did people actually die because they couldn't get required medical treatment because their paperwork was tangled up.
i thought the SC was just supposed to say if a law was constitutional or not - NOT to decide that certain consequences would be inconvenient (a concern that apparently escaped them upon implementation)
by the way they could have just opened up the legislation and clarified the language in question here. wonder why they didn't want congress to do that.... /sarc