Obamacare Ruling Round-up

New York Times Editorial Board: “The case challenging the law, King v. Burwell, was always an ideological farce dressed in a specious legal argument, and the court should never have taken review of it to begin with.”

“Thursday’s decision was a powerful defense of the law, stronger than observers might have expected from this court.”

Linda Greenhouse: “Justice Scalia derided the majority opinion as a ‘defense of the indefensible.’ But what would be truly indefensible, I believe the chief justice and Justice Kennedy came to understand, was the Supreme Court itself, if it bought a cynically manufactured and meritless argument and thus came to be perceived as a partisan tool.”

“This whole exercise was unnecessary, the outcome too close for comfort. But there is cause for celebration in a disaster narrowly averted — for the country and the court, which is to say, for us all.”

Ezra Klein: “In the aggregate, there’s a case to be made that the Roberts Court, in general, is coming to liberal decisions more often than was expected … But in this case, even if liberals are happy with the Obamacare decision and conservatives are upset about it, deferring to Congress’s clear intent is supposed to be the way conservative judges rule.”

Theda Skocpol and Lawrence Jacobs: “This new Supreme Court decision, rejecting an ultraright challenge to the nationwide subsidies that allow lower-middle-income Americans to buy affordable private health insurance on state-level exchanges established by the federal government, will speed the already remarkable implementation of health reform. And that progress has been truly rapid by historical standards.”

Read previous post:
Krugman: Obamacare Survives and ‘It’s a Beautiful Thing’

Paul Krugman: "Now, you might wonder why a law that works so well and does so much good is the...

Close