Discussion:

That’s true of any evidence. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t present the evidence.

This seems to me a very convoluted, if baseless, historic proof. The law as written is pretty clear, if Congress intent was different then Congress can properly re-write that particular piece of the law.

all well and good, but this is headed for Scotus, the same folks who brought you bush v Gore, Heller. Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. I don’t think factual analysis is going to affect them if they decide to rule in favor of the latest lawsuits that, in sane times, could only be described as frivolous or vexatious.

Just wait for the next exciting round of Obamacare Whack-a-Mole!

Join tens of millions of Americans as they eagerly wait for irrational Congrescritters and Freemarkettistas to come up with another hairbrained idea to deny their right to healthcare! Bonuses will be handed out if players can advance their ideas beyond the Appeals Court to the exciting sudden-death SCOTUS round!

When you set out to prove that the pretexts right wing judicial activists use to claim results-oriented rulings are actually the unavoidable result of a deliberative process of judicial reasoning, you are, in some sense, fooling yourself into believing that the judges in question were acting in good faith. You are, in some sense, positing that if only the judges had known about this, they would not have ruled the way they did.

The truth is that there was no set of facts, no legislative history, no evidence of Congressional intent, that could possibly have been presented that would have led those two judges to rule other than as they did. Any evidence, such as the CBO scoring and the delay of votes while it was done, would simply have been one more thing to elide or ignore on the way to the pre-determined act of judicial vandalism.

Said the one already on Medicare or with employer-paid healthcare benefits. Somehow, I doubt you express such faith in Congress to do it’s job while you’re talking to your friends.

Yep. Blah blah blah. Like the Scalia Five gives a %$&* what the CBO says. The law says ‘state.’

“judicial vandalism”

A much better term than ‘judicial activism’ for the mugging of our laws these days.

I was seized with the desire to slap each and every one of those hateful ignorant goobers.

I think it’s a little tricker than “Congress’ intent”. First, Scalia (for one) doesn’t credit Congressional intent (particularly from the legislative history) when it doesn’t suit him. So it’s not clear how far that goes. But, second and more imortantly, it’s not clear at all that the CBO models are evidence of “Congress’ intent”. Pretty clearly, CBO didn’t believe that the statute contemplated the federal exchange not to have subsidies, but that’s not necessarily what the plain language says.

In plain language, “state” = government. “Nanny state” includes all levels of government (it was frequently applied to Bloomberg’s municipal administration. A “state exchange” is one run by the government.

Never argue with data. You will lose every time.

Sure, but according to Nino Scalia it doesn’t matter what Congress actually intended. It just matters how somebody in 1781 would have interpreted what Congress intended.

Scalito and Thomas will have no problem upholding the DC circuit if it comes to it. The authors of the constitution were adamant about correct grammar.

This is a very common sense response. Unfortunately, we wouldn’t be here if common sense were the criteria.
The judges were spinning the language to suit their purposes with no intent of their own to be the even scale of justice. They weighed in according to their biases.
The judges know there own intent but intentionally fail to see others. More evidence won’t sway them.

Yes, we must pile up the evidence, even the obvious because the Supremes have resulted to playing stupid with big words that miss the point. If we can show how ridiculous it would be to even take up this case before it’s considered, we will have dodged a big bullet.

The federal exchange is very specific to each state, and also varies within each state by who-knows-what criteria. Only one insurer chose to offer plans in my rural part of thanks-for-nothing-Scott-Walker Wisconsin, but the Milwaukee area had more, different options which also differed from Green Bay, Madison, Eau Claire and the one-horse town a couple of counties east.

My point is, in journalism, you’re supposed to tell readers early on why something matters. Your comment, which I suspect is correct, is not made in the story. It should have been made high up and it should have been made by someone with legal expertise.
This is basic.

I don’t know how future courts are supposed to interpret precedent any more, since the only consistent principle alive today is whatever it takes to justify post-hoc the prejudices of The Five.

“Adamant about correct grammar,” huh? They sure did a bang-up job on the phrasing of the Second Amendment.

This is a long piece, but it’s not intended to include every nuance of the entire story. The point it’s addressing is the basis (excuse is probably more appropriate) for the DC Circuit’s decision - that the intent of Congress in writing the law isn’t clear (i.e. they may have intended to have subsidies available on the federal exchange and the text is just an editing error, or they may have intended to limit them only to state exchanges and are now merely claiming the opposite out of political expediency), therefore they can only rely on the plain text.

The CBO history is yet another solid piece of evidence refuting the notion that this was anything other than a mistake in combining the bills. Not that it should be necessary since the case is absurd on its face, but some people apparently need to be smacked in the head to get through to them.