Pete Marovich/ZUMA
Here is Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the Obamacare case. Although Scalia would not approve, I have arranged the excerpts out of order so they make more sense and are more amusing. I have also eliminated all the legal arguments and other boring parts. You can always read the full opinion here if you want. For now, though, tell us what you really think, Mr Scalia:
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”
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.”
But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. [Scalia makes it clear throughout that he’s still really pissed about losing the original Obamacare case in 2012. –ed.]
Contrivance, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!
Faced with overwhelming confirmation that “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble argument to support its contrary interpretation.
The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges….Pure applesauce.
The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed…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.
We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
