Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire If You Read Nothing Else Today

Justice Scalia's dissent of today's Supreme Court ruling on the ACA.

____


Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.

As always, Scalia is spot on. On the positive side, it takes this mess off the table somewhat for 2016 (a Plan B in case it was struck down that neither the Ds or Rs had a fix for). Now they can focus on which side they are on, repeal or retain, and that needs to go to the Legislative and Executive branches for resolution. Alas, I fear the ACA is like Herpes now...

Agreed, but I'm afraid that the court's admission that it is no longer in the judicial business is a larger problem than the ACA.

This ! in F'n Spades !

Concur as well and a perfect Segway into my "it's over" thread...

Plus everything.

It is extremely important that he stated this and it is recorded forever in his dissent.

This is good news for Republicans as it takes this issue off the table for now, and by next year millions of voters will be suffering under huge premium increases for Obama care. The only way for voters to fix it will be to elect even more Republicans to congress along with a Republican president.

Once again in '16 the Republicans will make promises to do what's needed and then after the election let the leadership bully them into giving the country away.
The crybaby and the bug eyed fat man have to go.

i 've always lived by laws i thought were just, and ignored the rest.

Well...... maybe......... but do you think electing more Republicans is gonna help US ?

We were supposed to elect Bush so we would get real Judges on the S.C.

How's THAT workin'out for you?

Beats Sotomayer and Kegan.

Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Bush I, has been the most destructive Supreme Court justice (destructive of the Constitution) since 4ager's hero, William Brennan.

I wish SteveNO was still around so he could explain to us how Roberts REALLY did us a huge favor in todays ruling.

That's what he did last go-round. But I've forgotten just how we were gonna benefit from it.

I'll give you your due, and Repubs havent helped matters any since Bush 2

The Supreme Court once more saves the Congress and the Senate from having to make unpopular decisions that might get elected excrement voted out of office.
It's a safe bet that all three divisions of our central government is united to subverting the constitution to what ever the progressives want.

Jim

Well, the only alternative is electing some 3rd party and they would need to be in the majority to do anything. So How's THAT working out for you?