# Obamacare Wins **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444 "2015-06-25T15:04:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/21 "2015-06-25T16:24:46Z")
My condolences to attorneys nationwide. I don’t read lots of laws, but I’d suspect that many of them are ambiguous, not because their drafters are careless but because they are large documents, often amended up to the last minute, often done under deadline, and often with many authors. We have not developed the technology for object-oriented law writing yet. If the decision had gone the other way, would it have opened the gates for people to examine laws they disagreed with in order to find ambiguity and mistakes, and challenge them on that basis? ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/22 "2015-06-25T16:26:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Alright, is this it? Can we finally exhale? Fuuuuuck that was relieving… i don’t think so. This gives Conservative law makers more opportunity to complain about the ACA and keep it top-of-mind of constituents as we get closer to the presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/23 "2015-06-25T16:32:05Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Bitter and snipey is an understatement. That reads more like a petulant hissy-fit. Scalia is hopelessly biased, and his dissent here is proof. If he was ever a competent jurist, he isn’t anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/24 "2015-06-25T16:34:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If the decision had gone the other way, would it have opened the gates for people to examine laws they disagreed with in order to find ambiguity and mistakes, and challenge them on that basis? Both sides applied ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, they just disagreed about how those principles ought to play out on these facts. I don’t think a contrary result would have had wider effect, nor do I think this result changes the landscape very much. Naturally, any time the Supreme Court writes a detailed opinion about statutory interpretation, there are subtle shifts in minute parts of how we understand the doctrine. But–at least on my initial skim of the long opinion–there’s nothing major here and wouldn’t have been even if the dissent had its way. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/25 "2015-06-25T16:35:19Z")
Roberts: > [@](#): > > We have held that Congress “does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions.” Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001). But in petitioners’ view, Congress made the viability of the entire AffordableCare Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-sub-sub section of the Tax Code. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/26 "2015-06-25T16:35:40Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Bitter and snipey is an understatement. That reads more like a petulant hissy-fit. He’s just getting warmed up. Wait till you read his dissent in the SSM case. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/27 "2015-06-25T16:35:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If the decision had gone the other way, would it have opened the gates for people to examine laws they disagreed with in order to find ambiguity and mistakes, and challenge them on that basis? This possibility existed before this decision, and it will continue to exist after this decision. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/28 "2015-06-25T16:38:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 1. 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.” With all the talk leading up to this decision around the fact that one poorly-written sentence could potentially bring Obamacare crashing down, is it fair to say that one word (“such”) actually saved it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/29 "2015-06-25T16:44:08Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Roberts: Missed the edit window. The quote is from p.20 of the decision, at the end of section II.C. of Roberts’ opinion. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/30 "2015-06-25T16:46:25Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > With all the talk leading up to this decision around the fact that one poorly-written sentence could potentially bring Obamacare crashing down, is it fair to say that one word (“such”) actually saved it? No, I’m gonna go with Roberts’ calling bullshit on the plaintiffs’ argument in the passage I quoted in post 25. ---
**Author:** ![Coriolanus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coriolanus/32/18769_2.png) [@Coriolanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coriolanus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/31 "2015-06-25T16:47:06Z")
Fat Tony (aka “supreme court justice”) with his “Pure Applesauce” / “SCOTUScare” / “jiggery-pokery” (WTF?) dissent, pretty much saved the Repub’s from themselves. Now they can hem & haw against judicial tyrrany (I think Huckabee has already said that). Roberts on the majority surprised me. He’s got some long game strategy I reckon. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/32 "2015-06-25T16:52:13Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > With all the talk leading up to this decision around the fact that one poorly-written sentence could potentially bring Obamacare crashing down, is it fair to say that one word (“such”) actually saved it? It’s certainly an important word. Hard to say whether the majority would have gone the same way without it. But the sentiment captured by the majority is mostly just that the proper way to interpret a statute is to read each of the words in appropriate context. Both sides agree with that in principle, but differ as a matter of degree as to how much the context has to be clear to overwhelm the context-free interpretation of a phrase. ISTM that this notion, that you cannot tell what a word really means unless you read an entire paragraph, or many paragraphs, is upsetting to folks with a certain temperament on a fundamental level. There’s a certain kind of person that just doesn’t really grok that concept because it feels a little post-modern, like we’ve lost our bearings if meaning is so fluid. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/33 "2015-06-25T17:05:09Z")
The word here might be ‘such’ but I have a feeling the word in the White House tonight will be ‘legacy’ \. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/34 "2015-06-25T17:05:23Z")
Most surprising to me is that by not basing the decision on Chevron deference, the next Republican president will not be able to simply order the IRS to apply the rule differently, at least as far as I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/35 "2015-06-25T17:10:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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 Supreme Court was not asked to consider whether the subsidies applied to non-state exchanges the last time they reviewed the ACA. The sections in question were undoubtedly ambiguous. Even I, as an Obama-cheerin’ liberal, cannot dispute that. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Naturally, any time the Supreme Court writes a detailed opinion about statutory interpretation, there are subtle shifts in minute parts of how we understand the doctrine. But–at least on my initial skim of the long opinion–there’s nothing major here and wouldn’t have been even if the dissent had its way. Well, there is one thing I think is new: Roberts second-guessing whether Congress would have delegated the authority to interpret the relevant sections to the IRS rather than (presumably) the Department of Health & Human Services. As far as I can recall, no SCOTUS decision weighed the likelihood that a particular agency would be _properly_ charged with interpretation of a statutory scheme (though there are obviously lots about whether a particularly agency was _actually_ charged with doing so.) > [@](#): > > The tax credits are among the Act’s key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Whether those credits are available on Federal Exchanges is thus a question of deep“economic and political significance” that is central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. \_\_\_, \_\_\_ (2014) (slip op., at 19) (quoting Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 160). It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243, 266–267 (2006). This is not a case for the IRS. I am not sure I buy that reasoning, since the subsidies are, after all, a matter of tax policy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/36 "2015-06-25T17:26:22Z")
Yeah, that’s interesting. I guess I don’t know enough about _Chevron_ to say how new that idea is. But still at most tea leaves as to how Roberts would rule in the future, right, since that lost comment is dicta? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/37 "2015-06-25T17:28:42Z")
> [@Coriolanus](#): > > Fat Tony (aka “supreme court justice”) with his “Pure Applesauce” / “SCOTUScare” / “jiggery-pokery” (WTF?) dissent, pretty much saved the Repub’s from themselves. Now they can hem & haw against judicial tyrrany (I think Huckabee has already said that). > > Roberts on the majority surprised me. He’s got some long game strategy I reckon. Reportedly Roberts was laughing through Scalia’s reading of his dissent. If there were ever any thoughts that he’d be another reliable regressive vote for decades, they should be gone now. ---
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/38 "2015-06-25T17:57:11Z")
[Here’s an article](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/06/25/king_v_burwell_decision_john_roberts_explains_why_he_just_saved_obamacare.html) from [Slate.com](http://Slate.com) that has the last two paragraphs of Roberts’ that pretty clearly delineates why he went the way he did. I’d post the actual text, but it is in image-form in the article. Some of this has already been stated, but I thought showing his exact wording would be helpful. It’s the right way for SCOTUS to do things, in my very non-lawyer opinion. Gives me hope on future things, it does 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/39 "2015-06-25T18:05:21Z")
Especially with the guy who wrote the law on tape saying it was meant to be that way. I guess this takes the issue off the plate for 2016. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444/40 "2015-06-25T18:17:03Z")
The views of the guy who wrote the law are irrelevant. He isn’t a legislator. We don’t look at the views of lobbyists when we interpret laws either. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yeah, that’s interesting. I guess I don’t know enough about _Chevron_ to say how new that idea is. > > But still at most tea leaves as to how Roberts would rule in the future, right, since that lost comment is dicta? I’m not sure it’s _dicta_. You _can_ read it as “Congress didn’t delegate this duty, and by the way they wouldn’t have done it that way anyway.” I read it as “Congress didn’t delegate this duty, which is clear because the IRS would not have been the appropriate agency for such delegation.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-wins/723444.md?page=3)