You may be correct but the transcript is confusing.
Starting at page 98 Mr. Carvin was talking with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor cut in to ask a question.
Mr. Carvin comes back to Sotomayor with, “One of the more pernicious, misleading impressions that the government has made is that we are somehow advocating that people could get thrown out of emergency rooms,” etc.
It’s not quite clear to me she was making a strawman argument.
http://www.zeugmaweb.net/legal/11-398-Tuesday.pdf
It should have been clear (at least it was when I listened to it) that she did not believe that denying care was current practice or even possible. It sounded to me that she wished to tar those that opposed the mandate with advocating that solution or leaving only that solution. She was as Carvin implied, regurgitating the government’s strawman argument.
Declaring your enemy to be stupid (as liberals traditionally do with conservatives) is satisfying in the short term but it limits your ability to anticipate their next action and puts you at a disadvantage.
She might be venal, evil, despicable (dangerous pun lurking) but she is not _that_ stupid.
I was reading along with the transcript while listening to the audio at some points and noticed how hard it was to get the interjections in the right places. You even might get a different understanding in some cases. (The court reporters do an almost miraculous job for a ‘flash’ transcript. Linear text does not deal well with people talking over each other.)