Thursday, June 25, 2015
Supreme Court "saves" Obamacare again with common sense; also, upholds disparate impact provisions of 1968 housing law in Texas case
The Supreme Court has upheld, in a 6-3 ruling, an interpretation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that allows federal subsidies to purchases of health insurance who live in states that did not set up their own exchanges. This could have affected 6.4 million people. The four bad wordshad been “established by the states”.
The CNN story is here. ABC News Channel 8 reporter Scott Thuman indicates that the Court is influenced more by popular opinion and what “works” or sounds like common sense, than just a literalist interpretation of constitutional law. But that started with the Warren Court.
The slip opinion in King v. Burwell is here.
The Washington Post has coverage here. Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress intended to make health care markets work more seamlessly. Scalia’s dissent runs 21 pages. Scalia maintains that the Court has no responsibility to relieve Congress from its drafting errors. Vox Media's Matthew Iglesias weighs in on Scalia here.
Critics of the opinion were using the term “Scotuscare” rather than “Obamacare”.
The opinion for Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities is here. The case , regarding disparate impact provisions of a 1968 Housing Act, is briefly explained here on CNN