Court upholds Obamacare on a 6-3 vote

[DontSayBanana]

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

My coverage premium is after a $200 monthly tax credit.  People in my income bracket would be just saying "screw the mandate" and going back off insurance if we had to shoulder an extra $2,400 a year.

[The Brain]

Obviously legislative intent is important, and a reason that I dislike the use of the term "rules lawyer" for people who read rules like a computer program and not like a law.

That being said, by far the strongest signal of legislative intent is what is actually written in the law. Otherwise why write the law like that if you're an organization of adults (which you would have to assume for a legislative body)? Lots of laws are completely retarded so a law being bizarre doesn't say much in this context.

[Valmy]

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.

Yi is a lawyer?

[Martinus]

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.

Yi is a lawyer?

Well, he does talk a lot about law, so I presume he is.

[Valmy]

If you are an American and you are in any way political you will babble alot about the legal system whether you are actually knowledgeable about it or not

[Martinus]

It's the same in Poland, only with healthcare and education. Everybody is an expert.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

It seems to have eluded your all-seeing eye that I am agreeing with Joan. 

[The Minsky Moment]

That being said, by far the strongest signal of legislative intent is what is actually written in the law.

The interpretive rule followed in the federal cases is that the text is applied as written unless there is an ambiguity; in determining ambiguity one looks at the entire law and the context of the particular provision. If ambiguity is present, then one can look at the broader structure and purpose.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

My coverage premium is after a $200 monthly tax credit.  People in my income bracket would be just saying "screw the mandate" and going back off insurance if we had to shoulder an extra $2,400 a year.

Here's a line from the Supreme Court:

In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges.  . . Th[e] system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individ-uals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all

That was written by Justice Scalia in the first ACA case back in 2012 and signed on by all the dissenters in the King v. Burwell case.  It really highlights the incredible weight the dissenters in this case are putting on legal formalism and a robotic reading the text.  They all acknowledged that the under their reading the federal exchanges are a dead letter and the law simply would not operate as intended in the states that don't set up their own exchanges.

[The Brain]

One other thing to remember is that the purpose of a law often is different from the stated purpose of a law. You normally don't put stuff like "look strong on issue X in time for the election year Y" in the preamble.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Yi is a lawyer?

Well, he does talk a lot about law, so I presume he is.

There is a deep irony here.