ObamaCare, Baby! The Supreme's got it right.

At the Supreme Court after the release of the 6-3 decision for the Affordable Care Act, June 25, 2015.

Congratulations to the Supreme Court for getting it right on Obama Care, the most significant social legislation passed in over 50 years!

On June 25, 2015 the US Supreme Court released their opinion on King ET AL, v. Burwell, aka Obamacare or The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Their decision was 6 to 3 in favor of the ACA with Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all voted yes to uphold the ACA as drafted.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. It would be worth reprinting the entire opinion to appreciate their full support for the intent of the ACA, but the following excerpt suffices:

'...Reliance on context and structure in statutory interpretation is a "subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself." Palmer v. Massachusettts, 308 U.S. 79, 83 (1939). For the reasons we have given, however, such reliance is appropriate in this case, and leads us to conclude that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchange to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress meant to avoid.

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined--"to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of the legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve the health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress's plan, and what is the reading we adopt.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is:

Affirmed'

This is the second time Chief Justice Roberts used the same philosophy to support the ACA in a Supreme Court decision. In 2012 he quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1902 to 1932), “The rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” 

By ruling twice in a way that respects what Congress wanted to do rather than thwarting it, Chief Justice Roberts was not, as Justice Scalia said, rewriting the law, but rather upholding the law as passed by Congress. (Please see Obamacare, the Final Chapter.)

Although simply the majority opinion could be summed up with the following graph. Finally enough said on ObamaCare: