Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

It's sad that so many understand so little about how government was supposed to function. But hey, it was established by angry old white slaveowners so who cares? Now give me my free stuff.

The SC could have acted as though they understood their job, and told one party of the legislative branch that when they ram through major legislation with no support from across the aisle (or from the majority of the public for that matter), and that they haven't read and don't understand, they will have to live with their mistakes. Instead, they became unelected legislators, rewriting key provisions of law based upon perceived intent, and let's be honest, political consequences.

i understand it perfectly.

back to the topic. how was the ruling incorrect? as for the legislation, it was passed, legally, by both houses of congress. you know, the ones who wrote the law, and discussed it? or are you suggesting it was passed as a 'gotcha', so they could then crush it in the scotus?

by the way, here's a great article about the arguments in the case:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...after_all.html

"But he seemed quite taken with a backup federalist argument made in numerous friend-of-the-court briefs. This argument stated that the law must be read to permit subsidies in states with no exchanges, because otherwise it would be unconstitutional. If the law forced states to set up exchanges before they received subsidies, Congress would be coercing a state to either create an exchange or risk sending its insurance market into a death spiral. And coercion this extreme violates the federalist principles enshrined in the Constitution."