"KING V. BURWELL DECISION CHANGES NOTHING FOR OBAMACARE REPEAL" - Jim DeMint / @JimDeMint / June 25, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/king-v-burwell-decision-changes-nothing-for-obamacare-repeal/ [NOTE: This is one of the rare times that I have included a second article to one post. Please see the second article below to view dissenting Justice Scalia's reasoning for opposing this very bad decision.]
This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of King v. Burwell which maintains, contrary to the plain language of the law, subsidies are available to those who purchase insurance through federal health insurance exchanges set up for states which opted not to create their own. This doesn’t change the responsibility of Congress to repeal Obamacare.
Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, pointed to the farce of the majority’s ruling at the beginning of their dissent:
"The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says 'Exchange established by the State' it means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government. That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."
Nevertheless, the White House is quite pleased the court has stepped in to plug yet another “crack in the dam” on behalf of the administration. President Obama proudly proclaimed, “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”
Less enthused are the millions of people across the nation paying more for their health insurance because of the laughably misnamed Affordable Care Act, as well as those who wish they could have kept their old plans, as the president falsely assured them they would.
The six justices in the majority—Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan—relied on the puzzling reasoning that since the overall purpose of the law was to put people into insurance exchanges, a decision which struck down the availability of subsidies for those who purchase insurance through the federal exchanges would be contrary to legislative intent and thus undesirable.
This ignores the fact the law was written precisely to use federal monies in the form of tax subsidies to their residents to induce states to establish their own exchanges. If the law failed in that respect, it is not an excuse to illegally patch that flaw through federal interference.
Chief Justice Roberts—who was a surprise vote in favor of the “individual mandate” in 2012—gave a less surprising, but nonetheless galling, admission that his court was ignoring the clear meaning of the legal text: "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
It’s a clear-cut case of the Supreme Court being willing to bend the law backwards to preserve Washington’s involvement in the insurance market and marks the second time in three years the Roberts Court has creatively rewritten history to preserve President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. As Justice Scalia derisively noted: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
It would have been heartening to see the court acknowledge the administration’s lawless behavior, but nothing has changed in the long run. Even if the court had applied the clear meaning of the law and declared the administration’s subsidies illegal, it still would fall to Congress to repeal Obamacare. This decision has redoubled that responsibility.
The only thorough dismantling of Obamacare can come legislatively. If, as the Supreme Court majority stated, “in every case we must respect the role of the legislature,” then today’s ruling serves as a signal to every senator and representative who wants to give Americans cheaper health care with more options and less bureaucracy: It’s up to you now.
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint rose from modest South Carolina roots and a career in marketing to build and lead a resurgent conservative movement.
"Top 9 Quotes From Justice Scalia’s Scathing Dissent in King v. Burwell" - Tiffany Bates / @TiffanyHBates / Elizabeth Slattery/ @EHSlattery / June 25, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/top-9-quotes-from-scalias-scathing-dissent-in-king-v-burwell/
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo: Pete Marovich/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom) [I SO wish THIS justice had been named to be chief justice. - Stan]
Justice Antonin Scalia is known for his sharp wit and even sharper pen. He pulled no punches in his dissent today from the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell allowing the Obama administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through the federal exchange.
Here are nine highlights:
1. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … 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.”
2. “This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”
3. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
4. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
5. “The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)’”
6. “Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means ‘established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.’ This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”
7. “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”
8. “More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”
9. “Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.”
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess
Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research.
h more options and less bureaucracy: It’s up to you now.
Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, pointed to the farce of the majority’s ruling at the beginning of their dissent:
"The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says 'Exchange established by the State' it means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government. That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."
Nevertheless, the White House is quite pleased the court has stepped in to plug yet another “crack in the dam” on behalf of the administration. President Obama proudly proclaimed, “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”
Less enthused are the millions of people across the nation paying more for their health insurance because of the laughably misnamed Affordable Care Act, as well as those who wish they could have kept their old plans, as the president falsely assured them they would.
The six justices in the majority—Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan—relied on the puzzling reasoning that since the overall purpose of the law was to put people into insurance exchanges, a decision which struck down the availability of subsidies for those who purchase insurance through the federal exchanges would be contrary to legislative intent and thus undesirable.
This ignores the fact the law was written precisely to use federal monies in the form of tax subsidies to their residents to induce states to establish their own exchanges. If the law failed in that respect, it is not an excuse to illegally patch that flaw through federal interference.
Chief Justice Roberts—who was a surprise vote in favor of the “individual mandate” in 2012—gave a less surprising, but nonetheless galling, admission that his court was ignoring the clear meaning of the legal text: "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
It’s a clear-cut case of the Supreme Court being willing to bend the law backwards to preserve Washington’s involvement in the insurance market and marks the second time in three years the Roberts Court has creatively rewritten history to preserve President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. As Justice Scalia derisively noted: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
It would have been heartening to see the court acknowledge the administration’s lawless behavior, but nothing has changed in the long run. Even if the court had applied the clear meaning of the law and declared the administration’s subsidies illegal, it still would fall to Congress to repeal Obamacare. This decision has redoubled that responsibility.
The only thorough dismantling of Obamacare can come legislatively. If, as the Supreme Court majority stated, “in every case we must respect the role of the legislature,” then today’s ruling serves as a signal to every senator and representative who wants to give Americans cheaper health care with more options and less bureaucracy: It’s up to you now.
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint rose from modest South Carolina roots and a career in marketing to build and lead a resurgent conservative movement.
"Top 9 Quotes From Justice Scalia’s Scathing Dissent in King v. Burwell" - Tiffany Bates / @TiffanyHBates / Elizabeth Slattery/ @EHSlattery / June 25, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/top-9-quotes-from-scalias-scathing-dissent-in-king-v-burwell/
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo: Pete Marovich/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom) [I SO wish THIS justice had been named to be chief justice. - Stan]
Justice Antonin Scalia is known for his sharp wit and even sharper pen. He pulled no punches in his dissent today from the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell allowing the Obama administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through the federal exchange.
Here are nine highlights:
1. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … 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.”
2. “This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”
3. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
4. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
5. “The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)’”
6. “Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means ‘established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.’ This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”
7. “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”
8. “More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”
9. “Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.”
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess
Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research.
h more options and less bureaucracy: It’s up to you now.
No comments:
Post a Comment