“Rush just said the full court is 11, of which 7 democrat appointees....”
********************************************************************************************
Well, at least 2 of the 7 may not be able to bring themselves to reverse today’s decision. The reason is that “legislative intent” only needs to be assessed in the absence of clarity (presence of ambiguity) in the actual language of the law. The language of the law related to subsidies and establishment of state exchanges is AS CLEAR AS PISS ON A SUNDAY MORNING. Any decision going against the clear legislative language would be nothing more than judicial activism.
Correct, and not only is language clear, but the REASON for it is clear -- the Congress cannot force states to set up an exchange (by well-established Supreme Court rulings on "commandeering" state resources), so the subsidies were clearly a carrot to get states to do it.
You have more faith in that than I do.
I might agree, if it were one of the recent Obama appointees dissenting. But it was the Carter one. I see all 7 Dem appointees hanging together on this. The DC circuit is considered to be the closest to the Supreme Court in terms of clout. That means that the Dems have made sure it’s stacked with ideologues.