Well, it looks like I was very very wrong.
I thought the plain language would carry the day, but the Supremes disagreed, 6-3, with Roberts writing the opinion.
The text is ambiguous, but they don’t analyze it under Chevron (!!). They do determine that because it’s ambiguous, they can look beyond the text, and no tax credits for state residents with no state exchange can’t be what Congress intended.
Rats. I called this one poorly. Wrong, me.
Can’t say I’m not glad your wrong but thank you for your opinion on this matter anyway.
I was thinking it was going to be 5-4 for Obamacare. 6-3 is surprising.
I’m glad to see the result, but will have to read the opinion to see if I’m glad about the reasoning. It’s not enough just to get the right answer-- even Supremes have to show their work! 
I’d like to see the dissenting opinion. I’m guessing it’ll be from Scalia.
I’m very happy you were wrong, Bricker. They’ve been interpreting the Constitution for almost 230 years, and I’m glad they interpreted the law correctly.
I don’t think you and I see eye-to-eye on many things, but I thank you for your OP.
He’s a textualist. I doubt his opinion will be at all surprising.
Hoping Richard Parker checks in soon with his summary. That will save a bunch of us a lot of reading. 
IANAL but it seems to me that Justice Roberts is becoming the Earl Warren of this generation. It does seem that he is more determined to leave a legacy than to be a strict constructionalist. Even though they didn’t need his vote, I am seeing his influence more and more recently in decisions that go to intent more than strict interpretation. Again, though, I may be just pulling things out of thin air. Not that I am unhappy with this decision. I do think the intent of the law was pretty clear, not to mention that I approve of better access to health care.
I don’t know-I’m thinking he’ll be a little bitter and snipey about this one.
Oh, that. Well, of course. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly!!
Just to be clear, Roberts has NEVER claimed to be a “strict constructionist”. That’s a term used, I believe, more by non-legal types than by actual legal types. I don’t think he’s even described himself as textualist (per Scalia’s definition), but I could be wrong about that.
Nina Totenberg thought that the count was the courts way of saying “go away kid, your bothering me” - my words, not hers.
I thought, though I may have been wrong, that common opinion was that Obama was going to lose this one. I guess that(or I) was wrong.
I’m glad and support it.
Most Oped pieces I read opined that the Court should never have taken the case, and that the Administration would prevail. Reading some of the arguments that took place, and the justices questions, I wasn’t too worried.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs and their similarly result-driven cheerleaders, the Court decided the *entire *text of the law mattered.
I’m happy for this, recently I hit a situation where only one part time job is keeping me up, I was prepared by getting the subsidies in Arizona for a year already when suddenly the E.Coli struck.
Obamacare allowed me to get treatment for the infection that was very likely to get deadly if no treatment was available, and I did not had to fall into the poor house, in a few months I will get a better job and my wife will finally come to the US to a better job that I would get (the education field is not likely to get you rich nowadays) and it is likely that the subsides will not be needed then; but really, for many people that needs health care the prospect of taking away the only remedy that was politically feasible in such a pedantic manner was really dumb.
IMHO the Republicans did dodge a bullet by not having to deal with all the people that would had demanded the states that did not set exchanges to do the right thing.
However, many states still have to close the gaps that their stubbornness has caused by preventing the full implementation of the law in their locality.
It’s a long opinion and the issues are complicated, so it’s hard to do justice in a summary. But here’s an attempt:
Roberts says that the critical language in the case that limits subsidies to “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is ambiguous for several reasons.
Such Exchange. Section 18041 provides that the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” Roberts says, "By using the phrase ‘such Exchange,’ Section 18041 instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish under Section 18031. . . . [a] Federal Exchange therefore counts as ‘an Exchange’ under Section 36B.”
Qualified individuals.“Established by the State” for purposes of Section is at least ambiguous because “Section 18031 provides that all Exchanges ‘shall make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals’ and a ‘qualified individual’ is one who ‘resides in the State that established the Exchange.’” (emphasis added). Since the federal exchanges are contemplated to have qualified individuals, Roberts says “These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase ‘established by the State’ in its most natural sense.”
Definition of Exchange. He says that "the term ‘Exchange’ [is defined] to mean ‘an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 18031,’” and importing that definition means that “the Act tells the Secretary to ‘establish and operate such American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 18031.’” Thus, an exchange established by the feds is an “Exchange established under section 18031”
Reporting requirements. He notes that “several provisions . . . assume tax credits will be available on both State and Federal Exchanges,” including the reporting requirements we sparred about in the prior threads. “If tax credits were not available on Federal Exchanges, these provisions would make little sense.”
Inartful drafting. Finally, he says "our preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute,” and that “The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.” Thus, we should be less inclined to interpret language as not being surplusage in this particular statute.
Having found it ambiguous, he then looks to other evidence in the text of Congress’s intent. He says that "the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”
It’s so ambiguous that until King and its companion cases were filed, not a soul doubted that the subsidies accrued to persons buying insurance through the state exchanges and the Federal backup, alike. Including the Supreme Court, the last time they reviewed the ACA.
The Moop invasion of Spain has been repulsed. 
Bitter and snipey is an understatement. That reads more like a petulant hissy-fit.
Alright, is this it? Can we finally exhale? Fuuuuuck that was relieving…
Hard to tell. Although people like to say “but the SCTOTUS already found the ACA to be constitutional”, that isn’t true or even relevant. In every case, the court was looking at one provision of the law, not the law in total. And in this case, it wasn’t an issue of constitutionality at all, but of how to read the text of the law. At any rate, who knows what folks will find to challenge next, but one would think the low hanging fruit has been picked…
Somebody forgot to put his Metamucil in his Sunny Delight this morning.