Octopus Overlords

stessier wrote:The justices appear to have some harsh words for the way that bill is written.

El Guapo wrote:

stessier wrote:The justices appear to have some harsh words for the way that bill is written.

(1) That's probably fair;

(2) Who cares.

Captain Caveman wrote:Breaking news of the morning is that the Court rules in favor of the ACA and federally provided subsidies (6-3 vote).

stessier wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

stessier wrote:The justices appear to have some harsh words for the way that bill is written.

(1) That's probably fair;

(2) Who cares.

The people's whose job it is to interpret it?

Scraper wrote:I just looked at the opinion and I was dead on. So predictable.

Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning
needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual
clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with,
other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the
establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment
of an Exchange by the Federal Government. The
States’ authority to set up Exchanges comes from one
provision, §18031(b); the Secretary’s authority comes from
an entirely different provision, §18041(c). Funding for
States to establish Exchanges comes from one part of the
law, §18031(a); funding for the Secretary to establish
Exchanges comes from an entirely different part of the
law, §18121. States generally run state-created Exchanges;
the Secretary generally runs federally created
Exchanges. §18041(b)–(c). And the Secretary’s authority
to set up an Exchange in a State depends upon the State’s
“[f]ailure to establish [an] Exchange.” §18041(c) (emphasis
added). Provisions such as these destroy any pretense
that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established
by a State.
Reading the rest of the Act also confirms that, as relevant
here, there are only two ways to set up an Exchange
in a State: establishment by a State and establishment by
the Secretary.

Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will
come across a number of provisions beyond §36B that refer
to the establishment of Exchanges by States. Adopting
the Court’s interpretation means nullifying the term “by
the State” not just once, but again and again throughout
the Act. Consider for the moment only those parts of the
Act that mention an “Exchange established by the State”
in connection with tax credits:
 The formula for calculating the amount of the tax
credit, as already explained, twice mentions “an Exchange
established by the State.” 26 U. S. C.
§36B(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)(i).
 The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility
for “[tax credits] under section 36B” and for “any
other assistance or subsidies available for coverage obtained
through” an “Exchange established by the
State.” 42 U. S. C. §1396w–3(b)(1)(B)–(C).
 The Act requires “an Exchange established by the
State” to use a “secure electronic interface” to determine
eligibility for (among other things) tax credits.
§1396w–3(b)(1)(D).
 The Act authorizes “an Exchange established by the
State” to make arrangements under which other state
agencies “determine whether a State resident is eligible
for [tax credits] under section 36B.” §1396w–
3(b)(2).
 The Act directs States to operate Web sites that allow
anyone “who is eligible to receive [tax credits] under
section 36B” to compare insurance plans offered
through “an Exchange established by the State.”
§1396w–3(b)(4).
 One of the Act’s provisions addresses the enrollment
of certain children in health plans “offered through an
Exchange established by the State” and then discusses
the eligibility of these children for tax credits.
§1397ee(d)(3)(B).
It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State”
once. But seven times?
Congress did not, by the way, repeat “Exchange established
by the State under [§18031]” by rote throughout the
Act. Quite the contrary, clause after clause of the law uses
a more general term such as “Exchange” or “Exchange
established under [§18031].” See, e.g., 42 U. S. C.
§§18031(k), 18033; 26 U. S. C. §6055. It is common sense
that any speaker who says “Exchange” some of the time,
but “Exchange established by the State” the rest of the
time, probably means something by the contrast.

noxiousdog wrote:Actually reading through the dissent does make me angry irritated. It is clearly the logical decision. Full opinion Short version: majority - "We knew how they meant to write it." Dissent - "But that's not what the law says and Congress is dumb, so they probably did it on purpose."

Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning
needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual
clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with,
other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the
establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment
of an Exchange by the Federal Government. The
States’ authority to set up Exchanges comes from one
provision, §18031(b); the Secretary’s authority comes from
an entirely different provision, §18041(c). Funding for
States to establish Exchanges comes from one part of the
law, §18031(a); funding for the Secretary to establish
Exchanges comes from an entirely different part of the
law, §18121. States generally run state-created Exchanges;
the Secretary generally runs federally created
Exchanges. §18041(b)–(c). And the Secretary’s authority
to set up an Exchange in a State depends upon the State’s
“[f]ailure to establish [an] Exchange.” §18041(c) (emphasis
added). Provisions such as these destroy any pretense
that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established
by a State.
Reading the rest of the Act also confirms that, as relevant
here, there are only two ways to set up an Exchange
in a State: establishment by a State and establishment by
the Secretary.

Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will
come across a number of provisions beyond §36B that refer
to the establishment of Exchanges by States. Adopting
the Court’s interpretation means nullifying the term “by
the State” not just once, but again and again throughout
the Act. Consider for the moment only those parts of the
Act that mention an “Exchange established by the State”
in connection with tax credits:
 The formula for calculating the amount of the tax
credit, as already explained, twice mentions “an Exchange
established by the State.” 26 U. S. C.
§36B(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)(i).
 The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility
for “[tax credits] under section 36B” and for “any
other assistance or subsidies available for coverage obtained
through” an “Exchange established by the
State.” 42 U. S. C. §1396w–3(b)(1)(B)–(C).
 The Act requires “an Exchange established by the
State” to use a “secure electronic interface” to determine
eligibility for (among other things) tax credits.
§1396w–3(b)(1)(D).
 The Act authorizes “an Exchange established by the
State” to make arrangements under which other state
agencies “determine whether a State resident is eligible
for [tax credits] under section 36B.” §1396w–
3(b)(2).
 The Act directs States to operate Web sites that allow
anyone “who is eligible to receive [tax credits] under
section 36B” to compare insurance plans offered
through “an Exchange established by the State.”
§1396w–3(b)(4).
 One of the Act’s provisions addresses the enrollment
of certain children in health plans “offered through an
Exchange established by the State” and then discusses
the eligibility of these children for tax credits.
§1397ee(d)(3)(B).
It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State”
once. But seven times?
Congress did not, by the way, repeat “Exchange established
by the State under [§18031]” by rote throughout the
Act. Quite the contrary, clause after clause of the law uses
a more general term such as “Exchange” or “Exchange
established under [§18031].” See, e.g., 42 U. S. C.
§§18031(k), 18033; 26 U. S. C. §6055. It is common sense
that any speaker who says “Exchange” some of the time,
but “Exchange established by the State” the rest of the
time, probably means something by the contrast.

raydude wrote:Chief Justice Roberts reminds Scalia that he is arguing against what he argued in the previous case.

noxiousdog wrote:I think it's perfectly plausible Congress intended subsidies only to go to State exchanges, and that withholding subsidies would be a penalty.

Further, if Congress had no preference, why not just set up a Federal exchange only?

As soon as this became an issue, Congress could have changed it to make it more clear, and yet they haven't.

Fireball wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:I think it's perfectly plausible Congress intended subsidies only to go to State exchanges, and that withholding subsidies would be a penalty.

It's a plausible reading of the passage, but those involved in drafting the bill say that this was not their intent. Are we supposed to pretend like we don't know that?

Let's not be silly. You know good and well why a bill didn't sweep through Congress to the President's desk to correct this minor drafting error. The House Republican leadership wouldn't allow a vote on it.

noxiousdog wrote:And I think that's further solidified by the fact that, as Justice Robert's says, "Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through 'the traditional legislative process.' Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013)." meaning that just because the writers thought that doesn't mean that Congress thought that.

noxiousdog wrote:Actually, I guess it doesn't really matter.

Glenn Beck wrote:The system that our founders put together, which was follow the Constitution and three equal but separate branches of government that each have their own specific role, is over. We no longer live in that America. That is done now.

“One would think that hepcat's sentiments are a milestone of judicial overreaching. I would hide my head in a bag.”

One would think that Moliere's vision is pretentious and diseased. Words no longer have meaning.

Isgrimnur wrote:

One would think that Moliere's vision is pretentious and diseased. Words no longer have meaning.

RunningMn9 wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:Actually, I guess it doesn't really matter.

Tell that to Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck wrote:The system that our founders put together, which was follow the Constitution and three equal but separate branches of government that each have their own specific role, is over. We no longer live in that America. That is done now.

Welcome to Amerika.

Conservatives are dismayed about the Supreme Court’s complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act — its ratification of the IRS’s disregard of the statute’s plain and purposeful language. But they have contributed to this outcome. Their decades of populist praise of judicial deference to the political branches has borne this sour fruit...

...The Roberts Doctrine facilitates what has been for a century progressivism’s central objective, the overthrow of the Constitution’s architecture.

One would think that Daveman's showy profundities are a tutti-fruti cocktail. Really?

Smutly wrote:To add words or to re-interpret words in law is, in my opinion, blasphemous by the SCOTUS.

Jaymann wrote:Also, 215 years ago there were no hospitals and gay men married women.

The Act required the Department of the Treasury to "provide for the relief and maintenance of disabled seamen." This Act led to the formation of several loosely controlled hospitals at sea and river ports all across the United States, which was officially the Marine-Hospital Fund. The Act specified the revenue for the Hospital Fund to come from the merchant seamen. It created a tax of 20 cents each month to be withheld from seamen’s wages for support of marine hospitals. The money was paid to the U.S. Collector of Customs.

Smutly wrote:I am a sane, well educated person and I know many, many people who are questioning the manner in which the government is doing business.