Posted on 06/25/2015 2:48:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Affordable Care Act was drafted with extraordinary carelessness given its importance, and conservatives who say that the Obama administration has implemented it contrary to its plain meaning have strong arguments. So opined six justices of the Supreme Court, including its most liberal members, in King v. Burwell.
That is, unfortunately, the best thing about the majority opinion, which labors mightily to free the law from the inconvenience of its text. The text of the law authorizes federal subsidies on health-insurance exchanges “established by the state,” but does not authorize them on exchanges established by the federal government. Since most states have not established exchanges, reading the law the way it was written would limit the law’s reach. The administration therefore decided not to do so — and the Court has blessed its decision, and barred future administrations from revisiting it.
To reach this result, Chief Justice John Roberts first implausibly read “established by the state” to be an ambiguous phrase — Justice Antonin Scalia and the other two conservative dissenters thoroughly dismantled his arguments — and then chose the possible meaning that would best serve the act’s purposes. This second portion of Roberts’s argument has a superficial plausibility, but it too lacks merit.
His point is that in the absence of subsidies, the law’s regulations would destroy insurance markets. Congress, he writes, could not have intended for the law to have this effect. But the question of what Congress intended in the absence of widespread state cooperation with the law is surely the wrong one to ask, since there is little evidence that Congress ever considered the topic.
Justice Scalia also raises the obvious counter-example: the Class Act, the federal long-term-care entitlement that Congress passed as part of Obamacare. The Class Act did not work because it had the very features that Obamacare generally, read according to its text, would have: The affected market would be unsustainable. It had to be repealed. The point of this counter-example is that it is entirely conceivable that a law, properly interpreted, would work badly or have perverse consequences, and it is not the Court’s job to interpret away provisions of the law to make it come out differently. Roberts responds that that the Class Act was a small part of the larger law and that Congress really wanted its larger law to work. Perhaps embarrassment at the weakness of this retort is what led him to put it in a footnote.
A ruling that the administration had exceeded its lawful authority would not necessarily have led to better health-care policy or a smaller government. It would not, by itself, have repealed Obamacare. That means that the contrary ruling is not a defeat for free-market health care or limited government. What it is a defeat for is the rule of law.
John Roberts and John Boehner. Making money on their stock holdings
Hospital, insurance stocks surging.
http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/AET,UNH,CI,HUM,ANTM,HCA,UHS,CYH,XLV?trknav=homestack:topnews:1
This is way worse than just “wrong”.
King John
EXEMPT SCOTUS and EXEMPT Boehner and EXEMPT McConnell
made a FORTUNE in the stock market today.
Somehow the nation must get past the idea that federal courts are the venue for deciding the limits of Congressional or Presidential powers. Maybe panels of state justices or something instead. But, you can’t be one of the parties to the question and still get to issue a ruling and have people take it seriously.
They have gay photos of him and he did not complete the required paperwork in order to adopt his kids from Ireland.
Blackmail.
Put his own needs in front of those of the country.
Thank you Bushes. Please. No more Bushes.
Blackmailed into submission to the tyrant’s whims.
I don’t think that Justice Roberts got it wrong as much as he is essentially as lawless as Obama is imo.
It’s a dictatorship, NR.
Quit quibbling.
They want to ignore words - fine. I’ll ignore their words. You should too.
When Catch-22 meets Groundhogs Day
6-3 5-4 .. No matter, as a few defend Roberts not being the “deciding” vote. Some solace.
bumop for later
As I recall, the gist of Robert’s argument in his first Obamacare Ruling was that it was not his job to to determine what the legislature could - or could not pass.
In essence his argument seemed to be: “if congress wants to pass bad laws, who am I to stop them. They must learn to deal with the consequences of their actions (but I will make them face that a tax has to be called a tax)”.
With this ruling he has pretty much abandoned his reasoning from the first ruling by declaring that he simply can not let congress fail in their intent. IOW, if they create bad law, but have good intentions, he’ll make sure the law is crafted correctly.
Apparently congress is unable to function without a “Nanny SCOTUS”.
It can be argued that the ACA was deliberately drafted with extraordinary carelessness so that activist justices could interpret it any way that they wanted to.
In other words, the corrupt legislative branch unconstitutionally delegated legislative powers to the corrupt judicial branch, just like it does with the corrupt executive branch.
Put his own needs in front of those of the country.
This is *exactly* why homosexuals were considered unfit for military service, back when we were still collectively sane. They were uniquely vulnerable to the traps set by enemy agents.
He is a GAY man who has ILLEGALLY ADOPTED his two CHILDREN FROM IRELAND and he is being BLACKMAILED....what else makes sense???
He’s not a justice. He’s a liberal political operative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
