Court upholds Obamacare on a 6-3 vote

[jimmy olsen]

I thought it was going to be a 6-3 vote.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-obama-health-care-law-n375536

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the reach of the Obama health care law, rescuing the program from a potentially fatal legal challenge for the second time since Obamacare's inception.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices said consumers qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost of premiums whether they buy their coverage through federal or state exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the court wrote in its majority opinion .

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."

"This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange — HealthCare.Gov — depend on the subsidies, reducing their premiums an average of 72 percent, saving an average of $270 a month.

Opponents of the law claimed that the actual wording of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress made subsidies available only to insurance customers who bought their policies through "an exchange established by the state" where the policyholders live.

If the challengers had prevailed, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange — by far the majority of those insured by Obamacare — would have lost the subsidies. Only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.

The health insurance industry had warned that if the challenge succeeded, the Affordable Care Act would have entered a "death spiral" — with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.

Among the law's provisions are requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. Congress knew that those components of the health care system would not work, the Obama administration had argued, if the subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of people were available only on state exchanges.

[Valmy]

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."

Trying to steal all the glory from Obama Scalia? For shame.

[Martinus]

Ok Tim so let's see if you can really predict that shit - gay marriage decision split? 6:3 or 5:4?

[Ideologue]

Darn. I was hoping it would fail, thereby severely damaging the GOP, and forcing US to reconsider single payer, and possibly preventing me from having to pay that tax hit this year.

[Admiral Yi]

Darn. I was hoping it would fail, thereby severely damaging the GOP, and forcing US to reconsider single payer, and possibly preventing me from having to pay that tax hit this year.

AFAIK they were only ruling on the subsidy, not the whole deal.

[Ideologue]

As I understand it, ruling against the subsidies would've broken the program's back.

[The Minsky Moment]

Roberts is a little "c" conservative and is very protective of the institutional position of the Court.  Thus not inclined to throw out a major piece of legislation extensively negotiated between the two coordinate branches on a technicality.

[Admiral Yi]

Roberts is a little "c" conservative and is very protective of the institutional position of the Court.  Thus not inclined to throw out a major piece of legislation extensively negotiated between the two coordinate branches on a technicality.

I agree with the first part.  This was shown when he made up that bald-faced lie about the penalties previously.

I wouldn't call this particular issue a technicality.  It was a simple fuckup.

[jimmy olsen]

Roberts is a little "c" conservative and is very protective of the institutional position of the Court.  Thus not inclined to throw out a major piece of legislation extensively negotiated between the two coordinate branches on a technicality.

I agree with the first part. This was shown when he made up that bald-faced lie about the penalties previously.

I wouldn't call this particular issue a technicality.  It was a simple fuckup.

What?

[The Minsky Moment]

I wouldn't call this particular issue a technicality.  It was a simple fuckup.

Sure but the consequence of the fuckup is that there is no way to read the words of the statute as written and have it make coherent sense.

At that point, there are two possible responses.   One is to read it in the way it was clearly intended i.e. to rescue the coordinate branch from the fuckup.  The other is to rub Congress' nose in it.  The differences in those approaches reflects a longstanding debate on statutory interpretation and the role of Congressional purpose and is very well reflected in the two opinions here. 

For example:

But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair  reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all  possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

vs.

Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job  properly. It is  up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.

[Admiral Yi]

BTW, is there precedent for "they really meant to say this?"

[The Minsky Moment]

Legislative intent

[11B4V]

Ok Tim so let's see if you can really predict that shit - gay marriage decision split? 6:3 or 5:4?

IMO they will delivery a major victory to the gay marriage folks. Religious fundies will be beside themselves.

[Martinus]

Legislative intent

Yeah, if there wasn't, that would be one more case for "wow, America is different from every single country on the planet".

I find your posts reassuring, by the way - if one listened to Yi and other Languish lawyers, it would seem US legal system is pretty bizarre.

[jimmy olsen]

Ok Tim so let's see if you can really predict that shit - gay marriage decision split? 6:3 or 5:4?

IMO they will delivery a major victory to the gay marriage folks. Religious fundies will be beside themselves.

Kennedy is a lock to vote in favor.