Quote:Vicbow pretty much nailed it. I don't feel like arguing with FBT tonight, so I'll just say that the correct ruling was made. The alternative would have been to shut millions of Americans off from affordable healthcare.

 

 

Quote:When a literal interpretation would completely undermine the intent of the entire program, common sense dictates that no, they don't.

 

It certainly is a cautionary tale in the "we have to pass it to see what's in it" category, but in this case there is no doubt what the intent was, the Supreme Court has already found that there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that intent, and for that reason, upholding it was the right decision.

 

However, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret laws as written, regardless of what the outcome might cause.  If the law doesn't specifically state something, then it points to the law being poorly written.

 

In this case, the law was written in a way that stated something specific.  The ruling was that "even though that's how it's stated and written, what was meant was something else".

 

Here is a very basic idea of how I see that this was decided.  Say that a law was written that says that the color of the sky is grey.  The Supreme Court decided that what they "meant" to say is that "the color of the sky is grey when there is cloud cover".

---