Supreme Court watch

I'll have to check it out. They need to stop announcing these during baseball season.

 

They should have added an amendment on tariffs. That would have clinched it for sure.

 

The credit is allowed for purchases of insurance "through an exchange established by the State." The ACA provides that when a state don't establish an exchange, the federal government shall establish "such exchange."

The Court did not hold that all references to state or state government means the federal government. It held that for purposes of the statute providing a credit to taxpayers purchasing insurance on an exchange, the reference to state exchange also includes one established by the federal government.

 

Not quite ... the act refers to State exchanges as created under one section (1311), then refers to, in the absence of these, federal exchanges as created under another section (1321). It then defines eligibility for the tax subsidies depending on the individual's being enrolled in a health plan "through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311."

 

Just as Gruber said.

 

Except for the cases he's lost 9-0.

 

Today's decision is also a complete reverse in logic of Roberts and Co. in 2012, when the moronic 5 wrote that it was not up to the Judiciary to "protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Today, instead of following that logic -- which would go something like "It's not the Judiciary's duty to protect Congress from its law writing" -- the court instead decided that its job was to make laws workable and decide intent on its own.

Judicial activism at its worst. I disagree with Scalia that it should be called "SCOTUScare." It should be called "RobertsCare."

Before RobertsCare, uninsured people couldn't afford to go to the doctor. Now millions of insured people can't afford to go to the doctor.

 

Yes. That is an accepted, completely uncontroversial tenet of statutory construction. If there is a way for the judiciary to reasonably determine that a statute is Constitutional, it will do so.

You're basically just mad you lost a football game. That's what 99 percent of the teeth-gnashing by people (on both sides) about this stuff amounts to.

Your life will go on.

 

Wrong rule of statutory construction. This was not a constitutional challenge.

 

Oh, yeah. I'm half paying attention here and thinking back to the first challenge.

 

Are you sure you weren't one of the authors of the statute in question? It certainly sounds as if there was a lot of that "half paying attention" thing going around!

 

What statute is causing the controversy? One of Robert E. Lee?