�鶹Ů��

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy both joined with the court’s liberal wing in endorsing the most reasonable reading of the statute, knowing they will face an angry backlash from the Obamacare-hating right. Perhaps the next time they deliver a ruling that disappoints the left, the default position should not be to question their good faith. ... It’s easy when disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling, whether King v. Burwell or Citizens United, to dismiss it as the product of bad faith. Thursday’s ruling should encourage the court’s more strident critics to wonder who the real cynics are. (6/25)

People often think everyone in Washington is political. With its decision in King v. Burwell this morning, the Supreme Court (or at least some of its members) proved that's not always true. (Brianne J. Gorod, 6/25)

I'll pause to point out a cultural and political implication of this ruling and the drama leading up to it. Some supporters of the law declared that they were going to take their ball and go home if the Supreme Court didn't agree with their interpretation of the statute. These people wasted their time: With a 6-3 ruling, the call was not so close that the posturing pushed it over. But these people did have one effect. They eroded something in civic life that we can't afford to lose. By pretending that the Supreme Court and the rule of law were at risk in this ruling, they strained the already frayed fabric of civil society. (Megan McArdle, 6/25)

Conservatives are dismayed about the Supreme Court’s complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act — its ratification of the IRS’s disregard of the statute’s plain and purposeful language. But they have contributed to this outcome. Their decades of populist praise of judicial deference to the political branches has borne this sour fruit. ... The most durable damage from Thursday’s decision is not the perpetuation of the ACA, which can be undone by what created it — legislative action. The paramount injury is the court’s embrace of a duty to ratify and even facilitate lawless discretion exercised by administrative agencies and the executive branch generally. (George F. Will, 6/25)

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday in King vs. Burwell is a huge win for supporters of the Affordable Care Act. It's also a huge win for common sense in statutory interpretation. ... The Supreme Court's decision Thursday in King vs. Burwell is a huge win for supporters of the Affordable Care Act. It's also a huge win for common sense in statutory interpretation. ... As the chief justice rightly appreciated, the broader statutory context thus confirmed that Congress could not have meant what, taken out of context, it seems to have said. That's not rewriting the law. That's reading it. (Nicholas Bagley, 6/25)

Sometimes the Supreme Court moves in mysterious ways. The health care decision was not one of those times. A case that six months ago seemed to offer the court’s conservatives a low-risk opportunity to accomplish what they almost did in 2012 — kill the Affordable Care Act — became suffused with danger, for the millions of newly insured Americans, of course, but also for the Supreme Court itself. Ideology came face to face with reality, and reality prevailed. (Linda Greenhouse, 6/25)

Chief Justice John Roberts just saved the Affordable Care Act -- again. If you’re feeling déjà vu, you’re not alone. As he did in 2012, Roberts defected from his conservative colleagues and joined the court’s liberals in refusing to send Obamacare into a death-spiral. In King v. Burwell, Roberts has now cemented his reputation as a true believer in judicial restraint -- perhaps as the only justice who still believes in it. And this time, he was given cover by Justice Anthony Kennedy, making the vote 6-3. (Noah Feldman, 6/25)

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion upholding subsidies on the Affordable Care Act’s federal exchange is a big gift to Republicans. Though he was ruling against the expressed desire of every Republican presidential candidate — that the subsidies should be eliminated even if that meant the nation’s healthcare system would enter a death spiral — the chief justice greatly simplified the lives of Republican politicians. In the process, he made a powerful argument for deference to the legislature and the critical need to consider the goals of Congress and real-world consequences when interpreting statutes. By mustering five votes in support of his position, Roberts made a bitter loser of Justice Antonin Scalia and his rigid textualist approach to statutory interpretation. (Yeomans, 6/26)

For the second time in three years, Chief Justice John Roberts has rewritten the Affordable Care Act in order to save it. Beyond its implications for health care, the Court’s 6-3 ruling in King v. Burwell is a landmark that betrays the Chief’s vow to be “an umpire,” not a legislator in robes. He stands revealed as a most political Justice. ... With the verve of a legislator, he has effectively amended the statute to read “established by the State—or by the way the Federal Government.” His opinion—joined by the four liberal Justices and Anthony Kennedy—is all the more startling because it goes beyond normal deference to regulators. (6/25)

The Supreme Court continued a trend Thursday morning toward making seemingly more liberal decisions. In two important cases, the court’s conservative majority was again split, putting liberal justices in the majority on decisions upholding the legality of certain subsidies to help Americans purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act and offering legal protection against housing discrimination. Why are conservatives losing more often? While the justices may have changed their views in some instances, it’s also possible that the types of cases the court is deciding have shifted. What seem like liberal decisions may instead represent conservative overreach. (Brendan Nyhan, 6/25)

The Supreme Court has finally spoken. It never really needed to speak at all. The Court’s 6-3 decision to uphold federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act was simple and emphatic, written by Chief Justice Roberts, no less. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dyspeptic dissent indicates the extent of the administration’s legal victory. Stock prices for the Hospital Corporation of America jumped approximately 8 percent with this decision, providing some sense of the economic havoc that might otherwise have ensued. I’m gratified by the outcome. But I remain saddened by the full history of this case. Cases such as King v. Burwell do not raise fundamental legal or policy challenges. Rather, they are naked invitations to crude judicial activism. (Harold Pollack, 6/25)