The irony here is striking. The majority is accused of legislating from the bench because they did not strike down a key provision of the ACA on a legal technicality due to an ambiguously worded phrase in a 900 page bill. To any reasonable individual, not blinded by partisanship, the three dissenters were the obvious judicial activists in this one.
100% wrong. the intent of the bill was to force states to setup exchanges. those that didn't and relied on the federal government were not going to get subsidies.
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.