Also, he didn’t write it in any meaningful sense. He almost certainly did not choose the words at issue in this case.
As to Roberts on Chevron, I agree that it’s a little ambiguous (irony alert). But I read it as buttressing rather than being necessary to the argument. Plus, in some sense, the whole discussion is dicta because the result would have been the same with or without Chevron. What changes, potentially, is the result in some future case in which the IRS changes its mind.
I think this board, GD in particular, needs more use of “jiggery-pokery.”
With regret, I’ll take that $100, Bricker…
At least, according to the Washington Post, which is generally no friend to conservatives
Well, it’s a lot easier to talk about Repeal and Replace if you don’t actually have to come up with a replacement.
He didn’t “write” the law. The law was drafted by various Obama administration officials and various Congresspeople and their staffers. Gruber obviously participated in its drafting, but he wasn’t the sole author of anything and a technical advisor wouldn’t draft legislation anyway.
Perhaps you should go watch the Schoolhouse Rock video on how a bill becomes a law.
I’m glad you were able to get the care you needed.
Your post made me remember this story from a few years ago:
It’s still stunning to me that people would hate Obama so much that they hoped a beneficiary of ACA would die. But maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised.
Makes you wonder what his wording was in the first draft. 
Yeah, I kind of know already, but thanks for the suggestion.
If you want me to replace the term ‘write’ with he was the architect of the law, as Pelosi and others have said on tape many times, then fine.
And what relevance is it? That law sat in and was altered by one congressional committee after another. It went back and forth between the Senate and the House with one alteration after another. It was scored by the CBO. The idea that statements (which contradict each other, BTW) from one technical adviser should carry weight over the people who actually drafted and scored and voted for the legislation is utter nonsense.
But, who knows? Maybe Gruber secretly took over the identities everyone in Congress, their staffers, the staff of the CBO and the people drafting in the Obama administration. Maybe he’s like those creatures in the “The Puppet Masters” and everyone involved was controlled by his hive-mind just during the crafting of this legislation. We’re through the looking glass, here, people.
The point, of course, is that we have on tape an insider, very involved in the drafting of the law, saying explicitly that the language about States only being the ones who get subsidies was intentionally put in there to make for difficult political situations for Red State politicians.
I don’t argue that others were involved in the law, but to say that he had nothing to do with it defies reality.
No, “the point, of course,” is that it doesn’t fucking matter what a non-Congressmember thought or hoped for.
Slightly on topic: Do I gather correctly from some things I’ve read today on Scotusblog that the justices actually read the opinions out loud, rather than just, I don’t know, having them handed out or posting them up on a server or something?
Wonder how many decades it will be before the institution catches up on that tech. 
That’s what I took out of it. The lawyers can find the language to justify their decisions but the overall question is whether this is something for SCOTUS to decide. They decided that it wasn’t.
My understanding is that reading the opinions is still the norm. I gather there are exceptions, and perhaps they edit for brevity, but yes, they read them out loud
Everyone else, including the CBO which scored the law has the other opinion. What is more likely? That some adviser got mixed up in an on-the-fly interview, or that literally everyone else involved, including the people much more central to the issue, is wrong?
There is some defying reality going on, but I think it’s on the other foot.
Is there a decision where this kind of thing happened?
Oh, this is rich.
Scalia’s dissent on the original ruling in 20012 is used by Roberts against him.
Delicious.
Except he didn’t actually draft the law, did he? Nor did he score it and nor did he vote on it.
“Others were involved,” lol. But I didn’t say he had “nothing to do with it.” I said his conflicting opinions aren’t relevant because he’s not the one who makes the laws.
The concept is called 'Void for Vagueness’.
There is actually another SCOUTS case pending this term that rests on the decision whether the statute is unconstitutionaly vague. I believe it’s the Armed Career Criminals Act. Johnson v. United States.
There is also the standing principle that if congress drafts a law in error, it is up to congress to fix the law, not the courts to interpret what congress meant. I actually forget the case that solidified that principle, but ironically it’s the one that the plaintiffs in this case thought would be persuasive. It wasn’t.