SCOTUSCare

From Scalia's dissent in his newly coined SCOTUSCare decision:

• Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.
• Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 SCALIA, J., dissenting yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
• The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.”
• Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of. Who would ever have dreamt that “Exchange established by the State” means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government”?
• It is bad enough for a court to cross out “by the State” once. But seven times?
• But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.

It is why judges matter. No more gestures like renominating Judge Gregory on the 4th.  No more John Roberts. The left does not make these mistakes. Judicial nominations are one of the most important issues in 2016.