Discussion for article #225562
The 4th Circuit’s opinion wasn’t “the opposite” conclusion to the DC Circuit, even though pretty much everyone is incorrectly reporting such. The DC Circuit had 2 votes that “the law says no subsidies” and 1 vote for “the law is ambiguous so the IRS’s interpretation controls.” The 4th Circuit had 2 votes for “the law is ambiguous so the IRS’s interpretation controls” and 1 vote for “the law requires subsidies.” It’s a big deal to the extent that if the 4th Circuit’s concurrence controlled, a Republican IRS couldn’t revoke the subsidies.
e: Missed that you’re a lawyer. Come on, get Chevron right.
I think you make a mistake in assuming Scalia is internally consistent or unwilling to reverse himself (sometimes within the same opinion) to feed his ODS. IMO, he will reflexively vote against the president regardless of precedent…even if it’s his own opinion. The swing factor here, again IMO, will be Roberts if he wants to bow and be (more than he is already) a tool for the rwnj’s or not.
7 Likes
Does anyone know if the ACA goes into detail about the federal government run exchanges set up for states that refuse to setup an exchange? Does that detail elucidate a different set of regs?
What difference does Scalia’s reasoning in one case make toward his reasoning in another? He’s a conservative ideologue. He’ll use whatever reasoning gets the desired result.
5 Likes
If anyone thinks Scalia will stick to an interpretation in one case will affect his decision in favor of a Democrat’s policy that person is seriously delusional.
2 Likes
You beat me to it. And it’s not just Scalia. The entire right flank has shown inconsistency in equal interpretation of the law in favor of outcomes that align with their ideological preferences. For example, they rule that it’s no big imposition for people of other faiths or non-believers to have to sit through Christian prayers at a city council meeting, but God forbid that a Christian business owner follow the same laws as everyone else in providing health care coverage, including emergency contraceptives for women, because it’s too much of an imposition on their religious sensitivities.
2 Likes
Scalia, like his conservative court brethren, sees no reason to adhere to precedent or present consistent or logical arguments. They’ll say “X” today if it gets them what they want. Then they’ll say the exact opposite of “X” and pretend they never said “X” if that gets them what they want tomorrow.
For the conservative Justices, as for most of the modern conservative movement, all that matters is the outcome. They’ll ignore law, rule, truth, fact, science, history, and logic as long as it gets them their way.
1 Like
Scalia is a relativist when it comes to his decisions. First he decides what he wants the outcome to be, then he goes about marshalling arguments for it, even if doing so conflicts with his so-called originalism, his disdain for foreign law, his disdain for legislative history. To him the ends justifies the means.
When the jowls start a flappin’
Ya just can’t know what 'ill happen !