Then, no worries. Right?
Aside from sneering at me, have you a point you would like to offer?
Yes. The Court has an excellent chance of deciding that the plain language is not ambiguous, and correctly ruling that Congress means what it says, not what it wishes it had said.
If that happens, the correct result will have been reached.
Well, that’s all settled then! Silly, silly Justice Stevens, if only he had consulted you first, he would not have made such a fool of himself!
The card says Moops.
One of the things that I’d like to dispell is this notion that a favorable ruling in King would effectively “kill” the ACA. No, the ACA would continue to function perfectly fine in states like CA, KY, & NY which built there own marketplaces, and the success of those states mean that they already possess far too much bargaining power for the rest of the ACA to be scrapped altogether in light of a nonsensical ruling in King.
But one thing really, truly needs to be made clear.
A ruling against the government in this case would instantly - and I do mean instantly - forever delegitimatize the Court in the eyes of a huge swath of this country. Unlike the 2012 ruling, an unfavorable decision in King would terminate the health coverage of at least five million people, and its justification would be based on nothing more than a flimsy argument about grammar.
Whether John Roberts wants to go down that rabbit hole is anybody’s guess. I personally don’t think that he has the wherewithal to permanently destroy the legitimacy of his institution, but, for all I know, he may have voted to take this case to begin with.
I think there is another way of looking at it. If the court rules that the law says “state” and it means “state”, then it’s up to Congress to correct the error, if it was an error. Now, one huge issue is that “Congress” isn’t the same “Congress” that passed the law in the first place, and it will be up to the Republicans to decide if this is one part of the ACA that they want to repeal and not replace. I expect most Americans would like the subsidies to continue, and would have no problem with the court saying “no” as long as Congress stepped up to the plate and changed to wording to “state or federal”. And of course that would open the whole can of worms of changing other parts of the law…
I know there’s a fair number of people who believe it’s the Court’s job to serve as a super-legislature: to get it right when Congress gets it wrong.
I agree that for people who believe that to be the role of the Court, a ruling against the government would be illegitimate.
But since that’s not the role of the court, why should anyone care?
Come on, Bricker. The overwhelming majority of Americans have no principled position when it comes to SCOUTS decisions. They just want the decision that they want, no matter the method.
It must be *so *satisfying to be above all that.
Not really, but I’m touched by your concern!
BTW, do you dispute my statement?
Given that the voting population of America is exclusively human, you are on pretty safe ground there.
Yes. The fact that you consider it a truism makes it pointless to try to explain to you, though. It’s been discussed thoroughly in this thread, if you’d care to catch up.
Absolutely. I hope you didn’t think I would disagree with that assessment.
Textual fidelity has never meant interpreting a phrase while ignoring the rest of the statute, or refusing to resolve ambiguity by assessing the expressed purposes of the legislation. People are free to pursue their political crusade against legislation they don’t like in the courts, but those who think the courts shouldn’t just be a super-legislature should favor the government’s position in this case.
I agree. I prefer a textual interpretation, and I can see the merits of the government’s position in this case.
I hear that the Professional Organization of English Majors (POEM) if planning on filing an amicable brief.
OK, you need to estoppel that sort of stuff right now!
This is a good point. I can’t figure out why conservatives are so excited about this case. They seem to think that if SCOTUS decides that the card says “Moops,” then Obamacare will just go POOF like a soap bubble and there will be great rejoicing. I can’t see it playing out that way, given that the consequences will fall most heavily on red states that declined to set up exchanges.
If I was a GOP congressman or senator, I’d be secretly praying for the administration to win this. The last thing I’d want is to have to choose between (a) passing a quick one-page fix that saves Obamacare, and (b) having to go into the next election as someone who helped torpedo a major entitlement.
I’m excited because it’s a vindication of the proper role of the judiciary. Even if I favored the underlying legislation, I’d want the courts to rule it means what it says.