fbpx

Latest Posts

Home

Facebook

Twitter

Search
About

Supreme Court renames Obamacare SCOTUScare: Court offers to write all future legislation for Congress to save time and face

Good news from the Supreme Court today: If you like your health care subsidies, you can keep them. If you like limited government and the separation of powers, you are out of luck.

Now that Chief Justice Roberts and five of his colleagues found that the phrase “Exchange established by the State” means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government,” we should henceforth follow Justice Scalia’s suggestion that this act of Congress, which had to be passed before the People knew what was in it and then had to be rescued not once, but twice, by a complicit Supreme Court, be renamed “SCOTUScare.”

If there was any remaining doubt that the present Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was in the business of writing the law when it thinks Congress requires its better judgment rather than interpreting the law, then that doubt can be set aside. Congress, this President and even the IRS have a most clever partner in re-writing the laws of our land after the fact: SCOTUS.

The Affordable Care Act, previously known as Obamacare, is no longer the law that the Pelosi Reid clique rammed through Congress. It was first rewritten by the Court to meet whatever is left of Constitutional limits on Congress by refashioning the individual mandate from a penalty into a tax administered by the ever-competent and trustworthy IRS.

Now the Court, determined to save the country from the plain intent and meaning of the Act, has agreed with the IRS and Obama Administration that Congress intended that premium subsidies be doled out via both state exchanges and the federal exchange. This is despite the fact that Congress clearly and plainly limited the subsidies to an “Exchange established by the State.” Jonathan Gruber and other Obama consultants, who hold such high opinions on the intelligence of the American electorate, designed a carrot and stick regime to get all or most of the states to build an exchange, dangling premium subsidies, loans to build the exchanges and federal funds to expand Medicaid, all underlined by the threat of a personal penalty if people did not buy insurance.

Obamacare proponents underestimated the intensity of the opposition to the federal takeover of health care and were surprised by the wide scale rejection of the law by many states and the American people.  When it became clear that more than half the states were not going to build a state exchange, the IRS had to get the carrot out to the citizens of those states by offering the subsidy via the federal exchange.

In order to save SCOTUScare, the Court outdid itself on behalf of its signature legislation. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent, “normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

President Obama, who was initially offended by the label “Obamacare” (it was after all, intended as an insult) but who proudly embraced it on the campaign trail in 2012, may object to Scalia’s suggestion that we rename the law after its best benefactor. But given that the Court has insured we will be re-working this law long after the president leaves office, it seems fitting that the Court get the credit.

On a more serious note: I recommend that you only skim the majority opinion in King v. Burwell and cut right to Scalia’s dissent (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito). Scalia’s dissent shreds the majority’s reasoning, as only Scalia can do, and reminds us of the proper role for SCOTUS and the all the courts. It is worth reading, if only for its historical value.

The King v. Burwell full opinion can be read here.

Comments

Subscribe

Categories

Upcoming Events

  • Morning in Minnesota: St. Cloud

    Location: St. Cloud

    Sign up HERE! Courtyard by Marriott St. Cloud 404 West Saint Germain Street St. Cloud, MN, 56301 Please join Center of the American Experiment on Tuesday, July 21 for breakfast with Center policy fellow and education expert Catrin Wigfall as she explains K-12 education in the state and its persistent disparities despite decades of increased spending. Following her presentation, Catrin will lead a Q&A session. 7:30 AM Check In and Breakfast 8:00 AM Presentation 9:00 AM Conclude   Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. She is also the director of EducatedTeachersMN and EmployeeFreedomMN. Catrin’s…

    Register Now
  • Kristi Noem: The Courage to Reject a Shutdown

    Location: Online

    Sign up HERE! Join us Wednesday, July 8th for an interview with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem over Zoom. In response to COVID-19, Noem defied the norm of a statewide shutdown and let South Dakotans choose for themselves what safety precautions to take. Tune in to this live online event to hear how Governor Noem preserved her state’s economy while still keeping citizens safe. Wednesday, July 8th at Noon CT Sign up HERE!  

    Register Now
  • Morning in Minnesota: Marshall

    Location: Marshall Golf Club

      Sign up for this event HERE! Please join Center of the American Experiment on Thursday, July 16 at Marshall Golf Club for a breakfast with Center economist, John Phelan, as he discusses Minnesota’s economic future. Following his presentation, John will lead a Q&A session. 7:30 AM Check In and Breakfast 8:00 AM Presentation 9:00 AM Conclude John Phelan is a graduate of Birkbeck College, University of London, where he earned a BSc in Economics, and of the London School of Economics where he earned an MSc. He worked in finance for ten years before becoming a professional economist. He…

    Register Now