Those exchanges “established by the State” are entitled to subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Those words would lead to the interpretation that Federal exchanges do not qualify for these subsidies. Nonetheless, six of nine US Supreme Court Justices ruled that federal exchanges were also entitled to these subsidies. Why? According to Chief Justice Roberts Congress did not intend to undermine the market for insurance under ACA. However, by making this interpretation Roberts was engaged in judicial activism to make law rather than reading and interpreting the law as written.
The six justices including Roberts violated legal axioms which govern all such decisions and made law by ideological fiat–this is not only legally wrong but also a dereliction. Let’s look at the legal axioms involved that these justices violated. If the written language of the law is clear,there being no conflicts or ambiguities within the legal document itself, thereby rendering the language unburdened by conflicting interpretations, then there is no basis to look beyond the four corners of the written law for the answer. This legal principle is known as the” parol evidence rule”. Nevertheless these justices did in fact look beyond the clear unambiguous language within the law to reach their majority decision. Chief Justice Roberts in writing the majority decision significantly erred in rendering his decision since the law does not establish that any other consideration will govern over the clear and express language of the law as written.
In reaching his decision Roberts exhibited a dereliction of his duty to interpret the law as written and let the chips fall accordingly. Roberts was clearly predisposed in this decision and also in his swing vote in an earlier decision where he ruled that the amount paid by citizens who failed to obtain ACA specified insurance was a “tax” not a “penalty” and therefore the ACA was in fact legal. This even though the administration argued that the payments were not a “tax”,but a penalty.
Houstonjac 