Just like Roberts did in the last ruling, Kennedy is showing that the court will again RE-WRITE the law, ignoring the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
NOT ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS is dealing with the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN!
By re-writing law (like POTUS does), we have not one, but TWO supposedly co-equal branches of government assuming the responsibilities of the third (Congress).
THUS, the words of any law - MEAN NOTHING!
It’s over folks, it’s over. Constitution? What’s that got to do with anything.
This one’s settled already.
Turn the lights out when you leave.......
Kagan just said something along the lines of focusing on the context of text or what it intended, not the actual text as written!
Wow, what a hack..
Scalia jumped in on the argument of the meaning of words. He said what matters is not what Congress intended; what matters is what they wrote into the law. He said (essentially) that the meaning of words matter under the rules of legal interpretation.
As for Kennedy’s concerns about undo financial pressure on states to set up exchanges, if it were unconstitutional for the feds to offer financial incentives to states, A LOT of U.S. code would be unconstitutional. (That ain’t a bad thing.)