Megan McArdle at Bloomberg: ‘Subsidies And All, Obamacare Stays‘
Comments are worth a read.
Richard Epstein’s podcast here.
Jack Balkin at his blog:
‘In King v. Burwell, the Court sent a signal to the political branches: Don’t try to uproot the ACA through technical legal arguments designed to throw sand in its gears. Don’t try to blow it up through clever lawyering. If you want to change health care policy, do it through standard political reforms. Do it through democratic politics. If you can’t manage to do that, then you had better get used to the idea of universal health care in the United States.’
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection’s take:
‘The issue was whether only state-established exchanges could issue tax credits, or whether the federal exchanges could also. Challengers to IRS regulations pointed to the words “established by the State” in the legislation as clear and unambiguous that subsidies were limited to state exchanges.
The Court rejected this assertion:
These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase “established by the State” in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context. [at 11.]’
Randy Barnett at SCOTUSblog: