The court ruled in favor of the Obama administration’s claim that, despite the specific wording in the health care, subsidies for the cost of a insurance plan should continue to flow to citizens in states which did not specifically setup their own state health care exchanges.

Report from the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, as opponents contended.

The outcome was the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. And it came the same day the court gave him an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

Obama greeted news of the decision by declaring the health care law “is here to stay.” He said the law is no longer about politics, but the benefits millions of people are receiving.

Declining to concede, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans, who have voted more than 50 times to undo the law, will “continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families.”

Salon compiled the statements of the various 2016 candidate reactions. Sufficed to say, it splits evenly along party lines. Republican candidates condemn the ruling as a blow to law and reason, while Democrats praise the ruling as a win for consumers.

The ruling will not take the issue off the table in 2016 since, presumably, any Republican nominee will be running on a platform of repealing and replacing the law with a different plan.


  1. The court had six issues to decide. Two down.

    Here are my predictions:

    (1) Obamacare–Voted FOR–this is no surprise, since it will benefit red states, even though those states brought the case. This will continue to be a political football. It riles people too much to go away.

    (2) Housing Discrimination–Voted FOR–the question was whether it’s “discrimination” if you can’t PROVE that it was intentional. Court says discrimination is discrimination, regardless how. Mild surprise.


    (3) Gay Marriage–Will vote FOR–this is an issue whose time has come. HOWEVER, it would be better to leave it to the states, since the states would go back and change their laws, anyway.

    (4) Lethal Injection–Will vote FOR–this affects very few people, so why rock the boat? I’ll bet the court will say lethal injection is fine. After all, what’s the alternative? One state has already gone back to the firing squad. Expect hangings and drawing-and-quartering if the court rules against injection.

    (5) Clean Air–Will vote AGAINST–Obama wants to limit mercury and other poisons from coal and oil power plants. The court will rule that healthy air is too expensive.

    (6) Map Commissions–Will vote AGAINST–the country’s districts have been drawn to favor incumbents. The court will find a rationale for killing non-partisan apportioning.

    • Three down, three to go.
      I predict yes on lethal injection, and no on clean air and map commissions.

      • I got five out of six right. Who would have thought the Court would actually allow non-partisan redistricting panels?

        This one is bigger than Obamacare, and yes, bigger than Gay Marriage–because it is our first opportunity to bring back democracy by reducing gerrymandering–and this threatens the unfair advantage of incumbents.

        • Well, it’s only limited to Arizona because of their ballot initiative system. The people got a referendum on the ballot and took the redistricting power away from the legislature. The court said that the people’s referendum could stand because, in Arizona, the “people” are also considered “legislators” because of their referendum system and wording in their state constitution.

          Not going to apply to other states quite the same way..

  2. One American Patriot, Justice Antonin Scalia — schooled the 6 Liberal trash Judges that are polluting OUR Supreme Court!

    And in a rare move signaling his intense opposition to the majority
    ruling — written by fellow conservative and Chief Justice John Roberts — Scalia voiced his dissent aloud from the bench for the Court to hear.

    Here are the most quotable lines from his written dissent:

    1. “This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it re-writes the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

    2. “The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges.”

    3. “Pure applesauce. Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the “interests of graduate students” into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has “graduate students,” so that “graduate students” must really mean “graduate or undergraduate students”? Surely not.”

    4. “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed … will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

    5. “It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State” once. But seven times?”

    6. “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a
    supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress all legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution.”

    And from Scalia’s oral dissent from the bench:

    7. “The Court solves that problem (believe it or not) by simply saying
    that federal exchanges count as state exchanges only (and this is a
    quotation from the opinion) “for purposes of the tax credits.” How
    wonderfully convenient and how utterly contrary to normal principles of interpretation.”

    TIME to IMPEACH the liberal scum judges that have have USURPED our US Supreme Court and are DESTROYING the US Constitution!

    • The thing that is odd is that the court is judging on the INTENT, not the words of the law. If that’s the case, of COURSE this is what the Democrats who passed the law meant. But should we go by intent? And if that’s our standard, shouldn’t the court just ASK those who voted for it what they meant?? It just passed a few years ago, email them and find out!

      In the next case, Gay Marriage, the court again ignored the words of the Constitution, and said that the Founding Fathers meant for us to interpret based on changing INTENT.

      I think the Supreme Court should have tabled the Obamacare issue, and sent it back to Congress for clarification. And in the case of Gary Marriage, I think they should have tabled that, as well, allowing individual states to change their own laws.

      Nate, you there? Opinion?

      • Oh c’mon, must I?

        I pretty much agree with your analysis. On obamacare, Roberts seems intent on going to his grave to save the law for whatever reason. It should have lost twice.

        On marriage, it’s a state issue. Period. This ruling is a constitutional disaster of epic proportions of which we will witness for the next few decades. Religious organizations take note, see Canada for examples.

        On the plus side, the same logic should make my Virginia concealed handgun permit valid in all 50 states as of immediately.

        • The Liberal “Judges” of the US Supreme Court must be IMPEACHED — for they are acting as Liberal Activists who are propagating liberal agenda by CREATING unconstitutional LAWS of their OWN VOLITION, instead of interpreting the actual meaning of existing laws as stated by the US Constitution!

          Shame on these Unelected Liberal Lawyers that are polluting OUR Supreme Court —Impeach and Jail the ugly Six!

Comments are closed.