Thursday, June 25, 2015


"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." - Antonin Scalia, in dissent in King v. Burwell (2015), upholding federal subsidies for Obamacare.
He also dropped "interpretive jiggery-pokery" into his dissent, and called the majority's reasoning "pure applesauce." Good times.

Read Scotusblog for more in-depth, but the one theme that seems consistent in the various analyses is that the 6-3 rebuke of the conservative argument against the Affordable Care Act was beyond mere defeat. It enshrines Obamacare right alongside Social Security and Medicare for generations to come.

Meanwhile, lost in all the noise, was another decision of even more importance, Texas Department of Housing v Inclusive Communities (2015). This case was pretty much written off as a 5-4 conservative slam dunk regarding housing discrimination and the use of race to gauge "disparate impact."

It was 5-4 alright, but Kennedy went with the liberals on this, rebuking conservatives, and handed civil rights groups a major victory. Again, Scotusblog for more.

Maybe this analysis by Adam Liptak is right...maybe the Roberts court is swinging to the left, issuing more liberal decisions than any court since the Warren years in 1969.

Jiggery-Pokery indeed.

No comments: