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 Affordable Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of “applicable taxpayer” or in some other prominent manner.
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.
Unbelievable words from the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Obama administration. (Emphasis in quotes are mine)
In other words…ignore the definitions of words, they no longer matter.
Since when does a court rule based on conjecture? Why have written law if what the law says is not what it means? If I’m charged with theft of a buggy full of groceries, can I argue that I doubt that’s what I meant to do, and most likely the law intended that I have them for my consumption?
Justice Scalia’s dissent on this ruling is right on the mark, and uses language in the law to prove that the Court yet again ignores the definitions of words:
And it provides that if a State does not comply with this instruction, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must “establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1)…
In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.
So HHS is not the State, but the Court just made it a State for this one time so we can keep Obamacare.
He goes on to point out that throughout the law it is clear, and repeatedly so, that the State Exchange applies to the 50 states and is not the same as a Federal Exchange. And to think that in the instance of tax credits, they forgot to do it in this one instance is absurd.
I encourage you to read through the legal mumbo jumbo of the decision and the dissent if you haven’t already. Justice Scalia makes minced meat out of the Court’s decision, or as he calls it “jiggery-pokery.” Plus he uses some funny words, which we here at FreedomReconnection whole-heartedly endorse.
