No. Right wingers are being dramatic over this ruling. It was always a long shot. Even the chief architect of the argument conceded that.
The words used are not terribly clear. This shouldn’t be controversial - as a matter of craftsmanship, the ACA is atrocious. Ironically, that helps the drafters of the law, because courts are wary of legiating from the bench by way of departing from a meaning intended by the drafters. It’s reality - statutes are, all too often, poorly written, and courts - good ones, at least - avoid construing language to contradict legislative intent.
This case was no slam dunk - there were arguments on both sides that were compelling. But to suggest this ruling is some paradigmatic shift in how statutes are read is overstating it.[/quote]
The ACA is a giant pile of shit, even by other giant-pile-of-shit standards like, for example, ERISA. Striking down the ACA on con-law grounds would have been completely acceptable on the first go round and within the province of the role of the Court to interpret the constitution. But no honest person could conclude, based on the structure of the statute as a whole, that the intent of the Congress that passed this big stinking pile of shit was to exclude subsidies for the federal exchanges. To the extent Scalia claims otherwise, as Roberts pointed out with the cite below, he is just lying.
See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 549 (2012) (SCALIA Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, KENNEDY Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) 567 U. S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450, 570 “(Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”).
Sadly I am forced to agree with you and tbolt on this topic…I certainly don’t want to, because I hate the ACA with the fire of a thousand suns but…yeah