[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

In Canada, AFAIK, the legislative history of a law counts for very little at the Supreme Court. How much weight does the SCOTUS usually give to the legislative debates, etc. that lead to the passage of a law — as opposed to a plain-language reading of the text of the actual law?

[iontheball]

Under established rules of statutory construction, if the wording of the statute is clear on its face, it is unnecessary to search for congressional intent. The courts are obligated to endorse the plain meaning of the words. Only courts that wrongfully assume they can legislate from the bench believe otherwise. The outrageous CJ Roberts’ decision on Obamacare will go down in history as a text book example of legislating from the bench.

[Amendment10]

"No one in Congress ever said that subsidies were limited to state-run exchanges, and reporters never heard about a debate."

History is wrongly being rewritten here. This is because the Democratic-controlled Congress irresponsibly rammed constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare through the system, deliberately not giving lawmakers time to discuss Obamacare.

[Hotlanta Mike]

California Health Insurance Rates Rise Up to 88 Percent After Obamacare

http://www.newsmax.com/US/california-insurance-rates-soar/2014/07/29/id/585599/

[Captain Compassion]

There were two hammers in the Obamacare Law to force the states to start their own exchanges. The first one was the threat of losing Medicade funding if they didn't play ball. This was struck down by the Supreme Court in the same ruling that claimed the Obamacare penalty was a tax. The second was that tax subsidies were only available from state exchanges. Seems that Obamacare is in deep S***. All those who are getting the tax subsidies from the federal exchanges are under paying their health care costs.

CC

[InterceptPoint]

From the article and worth noting:

The federal exchange system was such an afterthought that the law provided no funding whatsoever to create it. Federal health authorities had to scramble to rewire funding in order to get it built. In contrast, Obamacare provided nearly unlimited funds for states to set up their own exchanges. The thinking was that no state would turn the government down. 

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But it’s not a tax.

[Political Junkie Too]

Revisionist history.

This article from the American Spectator from July 9, 2012, shows that they knew all along that the federal government was barred from subsidizing federal exchanges, and how the language denying federal exchange subsidies was made in reaction to the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

The language was clear to all back then. I would be very surprised if the language became suddenly, unexpectedly, unclear today.

Also, from what I've been reading, when SCOTUS upheld Obamacare, they also ruled 7-2 that the federal government violated the 10th amendment when they tried to force the states to run their own exchanges via withholding medicare funding. This allowed the states to reject establishing their own exchanges. This is where it all started.

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that states can opt to not run subsidized exchanges. Is SCOTUS going to now rule that because of their prior rule, the federal government can NOW get subsidies, since it failed to be the incentive that Congress expected it to be?

Guy Benson at Townhall.com chronicled the history of what people thought in this article posted on the day of the decision, and how Democrats added the language prevent subsidies for federal exchanges in reaction to Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts being elected to the Senate.

Now that Brown is no longer in the Senate, Democrats no longer feel beholden to the compromise commitments, regardless of what the law of the land says.

They are looking to the courts to restore what they originally wanted, but were "forced" to concede at the time due to "politics."

Never mind that the law itself might not have even passed if these compromises weren't made in the first place.

That's how Democrats play the game. Always pushing forward. Even a retreat is really a flank.

Republicans, on the other hand, don't even retreat, they refuse to engage at all because they envision the worst-case scenario and then operate as if the worst case has already happened. Republicans create their own self-fulfilling prophecies of defeat.

If the Democrat expectation really is that it doesn't matter what compromises they make situationally because the court will restore what the Democrats wanted eventually anyway, then we are dealing with bad-faith actors within Congress; Democrats who don't care what they agree to, and Republicans who go along with the charade.

-PJ