This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/25/antonin-scalia-dissent-jiggery-pokery-scotuscare-king-v-burwell

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Antonin Scalia decries 'jiggery-pokery' of 'SCOTUS-care' in scathing dissent Antonin Scalia decries 'jiggery-pokery' of 'SCOTUScare' in scathing dissent
(35 minutes later)
Related: Supreme court upholds key element of Obama's healthcare law – liveRelated: Supreme court upholds key element of Obama's healthcare law – live
Antonin Scalia is ready to rename the Affordable Care Act.Antonin Scalia is ready to rename the Affordable Care Act.
In a blistering dissent to the US supreme court’s landmark decision on Thursday to uphold key subsidies under Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation, the conservative justice expressed his contempt for his colleagues’ legal reasoning.In a blistering dissent to the US supreme court’s landmark decision on Thursday to uphold key subsidies under Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation, the conservative justice expressed his contempt for his colleagues’ legal reasoning.
Scalia, notorious for speaking his mind in acerbic legal language, suggested that the Affordable Care Act – popularly known as Obamacare – should be renamed “SCOTUScare” in light of the court’s “somersaults of statutory interpretation” and “interpretive jiggery-pokery” to uphold the controversial law.Scalia, notorious for speaking his mind in acerbic legal language, suggested that the Affordable Care Act – popularly known as Obamacare – should be renamed “SCOTUScare” in light of the court’s “somersaults of statutory interpretation” and “interpretive jiggery-pokery” to uphold the controversial law.
He got some laughs.He got some laughs.
The case, King v Burwell, focused on a passage in the legislation that said subsidies for people buying health insurance through an exchange established under the Affordable Care Act were only available to people who were customers of an “exchange established by the state”.The case, King v Burwell, focused on a passage in the legislation that said subsidies for people buying health insurance through an exchange established under the Affordable Care Act were only available to people who were customers of an “exchange established by the state”.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act insisted that such a setup could not apply to exchanges set up by the federal government in states which did not create their own healthcare exchange – and that mass uncertainty might follow.Opponents of the Affordable Care Act insisted that such a setup could not apply to exchanges set up by the federal government in states which did not create their own healthcare exchange – and that mass uncertainty might follow.
Scalia echoed these arguments and insisted the court was reading in such an absurd way that “words no longer have meaning”.Scalia echoed these arguments and insisted the court was reading in such an absurd way that “words no longer have meaning”.
He went on to describe the reasoning of his more liberal colleagues as “pure applesauce”.He went on to describe the reasoning of his more liberal colleagues as “pure applesauce”.
Related: Obamacare upheld by US supreme court as conservative justices rescue lawRelated: Obamacare upheld by US supreme court as conservative justices rescue law
The ardent conservative also claimed that the court’s decision on Thursday, along with its initial decision to uphold Obamacare in NFIB v Sebelius, “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites”.The ardent conservative also claimed that the court’s decision on Thursday, along with its initial decision to uphold Obamacare in NFIB v Sebelius, “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites”.
The court is traditionally very collegial, and it was unlikely that Scalia’s barbs would have any impact on his relationship with his colleagues.The court is traditionally very collegial, and it was unlikely that Scalia’s barbs would have any impact on his relationship with his colleagues.
Chief justice John Roberts reportedly smiled and laughed when Scalia referred to “SCOTUScare” from the bench Thursday, after the long anticipated ruling. Scalia has long been close friends with liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Chief justice John Roberts reportedly smiled and laughed when Scalia referred to “SCOTUScare” from the bench Thursday, after the long anticipated ruling. Scalia has long been close friends with liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Related: Supreme court justice weaves web of Spider-Man quotes in patent case rulingRelated: Supreme court justice weaves web of Spider-Man quotes in patent case ruling
For all the hot fire Scalia spit in his dissent, he still may not have had the most memorable line of any justice this term. Justice Elena Kagan cited the Spiderman comic book in a case earlier this week, noting “with great power there must also come – great responsibility”.For all the hot fire Scalia spit in his dissent, he still may not have had the most memorable line of any justice this term. Justice Elena Kagan cited the Spiderman comic book in a case earlier this week, noting “with great power there must also come – great responsibility”.
Even applesauce may not trump that.Even applesauce may not trump that.