Scalia Blasts ObamaCare Ruling: ‘Words Have No Meaning’

Joel B. Pollak
Big Government
25 Jun 2015

…The dissent, by Justice Antonin Scalia, was blistering.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” he wrote.

“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.”

If a law was badly formulated, that was not the Court’s problem, he argued. It was up to Congress to rescue the subsidies for Obamacare, not the Justices. And if people did not like it, tough: that was why the Justices were meant to serve life terms. They were meant to be above politics.

Instead, Scalia noted, the Court had adopted a particular political bent.

He concluded:

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare…


The complete article, with video, is at Big Government.

Related: Farewell to the Rule of Law: Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare Subsidies

The rule of law was formally put out to pasture by the Supreme Court on Thursday, as we discovered that the plain text of a law matters less than what the party in power thinks it should mean…

…The majority decision actually does make it clear this is a pure exercise of political power. Chief Justice John Roberts writes, after reviewing the debate over what the “exchange established by the state” language mean…


The Robed Regents Have Pronounced!

Obamacare, the great no-longer-private not-quite-public pushmepullyou of western health-care systems, lives another day. By a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court, it has been determined that the words “established by the states” now mean “established by whatever”. Boy, that John Roberts is really growing in office…


Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court’s Ruling in King v. Burwell

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling today in King v. Burwell, in which it held that the federal government was authorized to provide subsidies for individuals whose states did not establish healthcare exchanges under the terms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)…



Comments are closed.