“Words no longer have meaning,” dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia declared after the Supreme Court employed “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to rule 6-3 in favor of Pres. Obama’s healthcare law on Thursday, upholding federal subsidies for insurance bought through Obamacare federal exchanges.
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare” because the Court rewrote the healthcare law, Justice Scalia argued in the dissenting opinion:
“The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
Scalia listed the “somersaults of statutory interpretation” the Justices used to twice uphold Obamacare:
- “penalty” means tax,
- “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State,
- “established by the State” means not established by the State
In his dissenting opinion, Scalia explained how Justices redefined “established by the State” to mean the exact opposite of its obvious intention:
"This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.”
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.”
"Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"
Due to it’s redefinition of words, the Supreme Court is forever branded as a court that plays favorites with the law, Scalia concluded:
“And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
Editor's Note: To see how the Media Research Center fights to prevent the liberal media from redefining the truth and playing favorites, click here.