- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 15,186
- Reaction score
- 11,428
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
As I said, if we're honest our opinion about the correctness of the decision is highly correlated with how we feel about the law.
...
I don't think either of us is a constitutional law expert so I don't see the point of arguing the fine points of constitutional law. But if you'd like to read the different opinions about this case, here's the SCOTUS blog's rundown of various opinions. What you'll find is some of the best experts discussing why, obviously, Roberts was correct, and other experts discussing why, clearly, Scalia was.
They didn't make an "error." They interpreted the law differently than the dissent. Ultimately the majority decided that had Congress intended to provide subsidies ONLY state exchanges, they would have made that clear, not hidden the "intent" so well that no one, literally, in Congress mentioned or debated this outcome, nor did the states know of the consequences of deferring to the Feds when they made their decision about setting up the exchange. As one commenter quotes Scalia in another context, "Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes.”
Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional - unless one wishes to ignore the Constitution's separation of powers and embrace SCOTUS as our true oligarchy of nine - which, I suspect, the majority do. On the other hand, we are spared a Republican clown act of trying to save the program in order to avoid blame, and it gives them a platform to continue to use OC (or Scotus care) as a target.
There is nothing remarkable in the opinion, other than it barely pretends to have a legal basis to what, I am sure, the majority know to be little more than a finding based on fear of (or opposition to) the actual written law. One sensed that at times Roberts wrote with a wink, not unlike the Russian Judge in the Khodorkovsky trial...except that trial the judge laughed earlier with the defense, and then did his oligarchy duty and gave the tycoon the maximum new sentence.
Perhaps most let their view of Obamacare shape their opinion - rather, my view of law shapes my opinion of the legality of Obamacare.