Chief Justice John Roberts Issues Stunning Opinion in Obamacare Ruling

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, issued a stunning ruling in favor of Obamacare by admitting the law as written supported the plaintiff’s challenge. By his own words, Roberts stated that “the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” In other words, he acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act was in fact written to limit federal subsidies to state-run exchanges, but because the “greater good” is to preserve health insurance for low-income recipients and protect the private insurance market, the court had to ignore the actual wording of the law “in this instance”. As such it was a decidedly liberal shift for the court.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia exasperated that the ruling rendered the actual wording of any law as meaningless. Scalia was at odds over how the phrase stating that health care subsidies were limited to exchanges “established by the state” could be interpreted to include those “not established by the state”. Then again, his argument was largely not applicable because the majority concurred as to meaning of the controversial phrase. That’s how Ricardo Tosto sees it. In one sense, all nine justices agreed that the law was written to limit subsides to state-run exchanges. That said, the six justices (two conservatives and four liberal justices) believed the greater good should prevail over the law’s original intent. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are thrilled with the ruling.

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts