Roberts did more than cast the deciding vote. He wrote an opinion that did backward flips to strain logic.
This case is going to come down to legislative history and the congressional record of what the legislature intended. The court will have lots of wiggle room if they want to perform acrobatics.
In order to save Obamacare, Roberts rewrote it as one big tax bill, even though Obama and the Democrats had repeatedly claimed that it was not a tax.
I don’t think Roberts will have any trouble rewriting it again so that an “Exchange established by the State” means an exchange established by the feds or a state.
” Roberts did more than cast the deciding vote. He wrote an opinion that did backward flips to strain logic.”
Roberts was allegedly a top legal scholar at Harvard Law School. No scholar could write this pretzel logic drivel, unless they were coerced. This is Joe Biden territory.
This case will came down to what the DEMOCRATS intended vs. what they were forced to compromise as a combined legislature after the election of Scott Brown as the Republican "40th vote."
The question is whether Roberts will give back to Democrats what they intentionally gave away now that Brown is no longer in the Senate to complain?
Will Roberts undermine the concept of good-faith negotiation by giving the Democrats what they really wanted all along but were politically unable to attain?
Republicans intended things, too, but were only able to politically attain the few concessions that they received, such as no federal subsidies in stat es with no state exchanges. If Roberts takes that away, we might as well have a new amendment that Legislative intent is only what Democrats say it is at any given time.
-PJ