USSC Oral Argument is up for King v. Burwell (ACA subsidy-challenge case)

[Volaris]

the liberal wing took it to the house on this one...Kagen for the Win with the 'My Chambers' example hahaha, there's some good stuff in this one, even though the whole thing turns on a linguistic technicality..

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-114

Hope you enjoy,

[HereSince1628]

1. Thanks for posting the link... the argument seems to hang on consequences of the poor writing

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

that slips into very large, complicated bills. It's also about the use of such mistakes as 'poison pills'.

To me the argument seems to be about two methods of how mistakes, ambiguities and mistaken interpretations can be identified and resolved... if I've got that wrong I'd like to be corrected...

The first of these is use of anomalous implications relative to the objectives of the law.

The mistakes are recognized by anomalous implications of the text on the objective of the law and the intent of its authors. A mistaken interpretation amplifies absurdities in regard to the objective of the law. The justices see many more anomolies in the ACA than the specific one at the heart of the argument, which is whether in the text of the law consumers on a state created exchange and consumers on a federally created exchange are intended to both be eligible for consumer subsidies. This seems to confound what should be a more than less objective weighing of which interpretation generates more anomalies. It also seems to create an arena in which the preferences of individual justices have freedom to maneuver.

The second is that problems in ambiguity of a law may be resolved if a unique interpretation creates untoward or unconstitutional consequence for implementation of the law and another, reasonable alternative, does not. The implication of the plaintiffs interpretation of the state exchange vs federal exchange drastically affects federal availability of state funding for medicaid, and in the mind of several justices amounts to potentially unfair coercion by the federal government on states' choice to act.

This second issue seems to be one of broader consequence than the ACA, as it has potential to address limits to the Federal government's use of withholding federal funding to obtain state compliance with federal programs.