I used to think that Congress made the law while the Supreme Court applied the law; with today's decision, I accept that this is no longer the case. The King V. Burwell case is a great example of the Court changing the clear language of a law passed by Congress which the Court has done for political purposes.
The essence of the Courts decision is to hold that when the law says an "exchange created by the State pursuant to section 1311" of Obamacare, this is ambiguous. Really? Section 1311 of the act applies only to exchanges created by individual states; the federal government can create an exchange only pursuant to section 1312 of the law. There is no ambiguity. The law refers to action by a state and not by the federal government. The section of the law to which reference is made is the one that applies only to states and not the federal government. Despite all this, the Supreme Court decided today that it was ambiguous whether the reference in the law was just to exchanges created by states or also to those created by the federal government. Think about it this way: suppose a low had special rules for "red cars" only. Could the Court properly decide that the statute really meant all cars? I don't think so. But now let's make it more like the Obamacare statute. Suppose that the statute had special rules for "red cars" that emitted light of a particular wave length which only applied to those which are red. Could the Court properly find this to be ambiguous? No way.
The Supreme Court today gave away any chance it had to be viewed as an impartial arbiter of the law. It's just another collection of politicians doing whatever they want despite the law.
The essence of the Courts decision is to hold that when the law says an "exchange created by the State pursuant to section 1311" of Obamacare, this is ambiguous. Really? Section 1311 of the act applies only to exchanges created by individual states; the federal government can create an exchange only pursuant to section 1312 of the law. There is no ambiguity. The law refers to action by a state and not by the federal government. The section of the law to which reference is made is the one that applies only to states and not the federal government. Despite all this, the Supreme Court decided today that it was ambiguous whether the reference in the law was just to exchanges created by states or also to those created by the federal government. Think about it this way: suppose a low had special rules for "red cars" only. Could the Court properly decide that the statute really meant all cars? I don't think so. But now let's make it more like the Obamacare statute. Suppose that the statute had special rules for "red cars" that emitted light of a particular wave length which only applied to those which are red. Could the Court properly find this to be ambiguous? No way.
The Supreme Court today gave away any chance it had to be viewed as an impartial arbiter of the law. It's just another collection of politicians doing whatever they want despite the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment