SCOTUS Opinion Leaves No Room for Doubt

Greg Sargent: Chief Justice Roberts’ “opinion may have precluded any future efforts by a Republican president to use executive discretion to cancel the subsidies for the millions of people on the federal exchange. This option might have been left open if the ruling had been written differently.”

The opinion “ultimately did not base its conclusion on ‘Chevron deference,’ i.e., the idea that Courts should defer to the discretion exercised by an agency (in this case the IRS) when interpreting seemingly confusing or self-contradictory statutes.”

“The court held that it would not presume that Congress implicitly intended to defer such a central decision to the agency. As such, the Court’s task was to determine the ‘correct’ reading of the disputed phrase.”

“A strong six member majority of the court is coalescing around this very clean argument,’ [Yale Law School Professor Abbe Gluck said].  ‘That sends a strong signal to people who politically oppose the law that the court understands the law and is not going to tolerate more of this frivolous litigation that tries to destroy the statute by distorting it.’”

Read previous post:
GOP Reaction to Obamacare Ruling? Relief

Vox: "Amid a flurry of official statements declaring shock, outrage, and disappointment after the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care...