Law in the Raw (an op-ed about the ACA Supreme Court case) by Linda Greenhouse
Nearly a week has gone by since the Supreme Courts unexpected decision to enlist in the latest effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act, and the shock remains unabated. This is Bush v. Gore all over again, one friend said as we struggled to absorb the news last Friday afternoon. No, I replied. Its worse.
What I meant was this: In the inconclusive aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, a growing sense of urgency, even crisis, gave rise to a plausible argument that someone had better do something soon to find out who would be the next president. True, a federal statute on the books defined the someone as Congress, but the Bush forces got to the Supreme Court first with a case that fell within the courts jurisdiction. The 5-to-4 decision to stop the Florida recount had the effect of calling the election for the governor of Texas, George W. Bush. I disagreed with the decision and considered the contorted way the majority deployed the Constitutions equal-protection guarantee to be ludicrous. But in the years since, Ive often felt like the last progressive willing to defend the court for getting involved when it did.
Thats not the case here. There was no urgency. There was no crisis of governance, not even a potential one. There is, rather, a politically manufactured argument over how to interpret several sections of the Affordable Care Act that admittedly fit awkwardly together in defining how the tax credits are supposed to work for people who buy their health insurance on the exchanges set up under the law.
More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/law-in-the-raw.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article