SCOTUS Rules, Republicans Breath Sigh of Relief, Jeb Just Wants Your $

This morning, in a 6-3 split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that ACA subsidies are legal for those who have signed up for healthcare through the federal exchange.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion for Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.  "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," apparently referencing the Court's previous decision mandating that people buy insurance was constitutional. He also lambasted the Obama administration for performing "somersaults of statutory interpretation" in the law.

The majority, in a common sense approach, decided that the entire law could not be judged by just four words, and that in context, Congress' intention to provide universal availability of subsidies was evident.  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that the four words were a careless and easily misinterpreted phrase.

"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting...The Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation...(but) the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."

The majority held that despite the phrase in question's ambiguity, it should be interpreted to be consistent with "the way different provisions in the statute interact." 

what eye thynk:   I have been imagining the 2016 presidential campaign if Republican candidates had to explain  the "benefits" of losing their health insurance to 6.5 million Americans.  It was a possibility that, in recent weeks, the Republican Party was beginning to realize could be theirs.

Despite the GOP's five year battle against "Obamacare," and party leadership's claim that they could do better, they have never reached any type of serious consensus on an alternative plan.  Some Republican governors, who up to this point refused to create a state exchange, were beginning to realize how shaky would be their tenure in the governor's seat if they had to explain to those citizens losing their subsidies why they felt it was more important to stand up for GOP principles rather than protect their constituents.  Plans to create state exchanges were being put on the fast track in several red states. 

Washington Republicans were floating ideas for stop-gap measures to save the subsidies while Congress worked on that elusive alternative plan.  Of course, the need for these steps were costumed in typical Republican rhetoric, basically their argument was  "The President has no plans to help you if SCOTUS decides in our favor; so please note how hard we are working to protect the healthcare act we've fought so hard for five years to destroy." This argument was never going to be a prize winner.

In short, if the Supreme Court decided in their favor, the Republican Party's Theater-of-the-Absurd was about to bring a whole lot of pain down on their conservative heads.  

So, when you step outside your home today, that refreshing breeze you feel is not Mother Nature's work. It's simply the result of every Republican politician in the United States of America breathing a sigh of relief.

Addendum:

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, Jeb Bush needs your "emergency contribution."

He appealed to his supporters:

"As we both know Hillary Clinton will be more of the same.  We cannot let his happen.  That is why I need you to make a one time--emergency contribution of $50, $25, or $10 to my campaign to ensure that NEVER happens...And here is my promise to you.  As President, I will uphold our Constitution, I will not compromise my duty to you or the American people...We need a President who will repeal and replace ObamaCare with a conservative solution."

I'm trying to decide whether to applaud his opportunism or laugh at the absurdity of another "conservative solution."   Talk about "more of the same."