and probably carry the market with them.

Still I think it is very uncertain to predict what the court will decide based on their questions

will only get worse if they overturn this idea.

Kennedy is the weather vane of the SCOTUS and is very often the deciding opinion. Hope he wasn't just playing us and really does see the big problems ruling against the ACA subsidies would cause.

Then when they make their decision, its: We looked very closely at your side of the argument, but in the end, no matter our personal opinions, the law is NOT unconstitutional.

It's just a question of statutory interpretation -- does the law provide subsidies for all income-eligible citizens, or only for those in states that have their own exchanges?

It would be constitutional for Congress to do it either way. SCOTUS has to figure out what Congress meant, when each side can point to language somewhere in this huge bill that supports its interpretation.

The first question is indeed one of statutory interpretation. If the plaintiffs' interpretation were accepted, however, then the federal government would be treating the states differently, depending on whether they established an exchange. At the oral argument, Kennedy raised the possibility that this would present a constitutional issue.

I haven't read the transcript and I don't know exactly what he was getting at it. The plaintiffs' argument is that Congress wanted to provide a financial incentive to states to set up exchanges. There are other areas where financial benefits are available or not, depending on a state's choice, notably the Medicaid expansion in this very statute (made a state option by the last SCOTUS ruling).

Still, if Kennedy sees a constitutional problem, that could be a deciding factor. One long-established axiom of statutory interpretation is that, if there are two plausible interpretations, and one presents a constitutional problem and one doesn't, courts should prefer the latter. Maybe this is how we'll get Kennedy's vote.

What Justice Kennedy said is, indeed, good news, IMO.

However, don't forget, this is the same guy who voted FOR Citizens United.


Then there's this:
"Scalia Insists Congress Would Act If SCOTUS Nixes Obamacare Subsidies"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141029133

I'm shocked!!!

To the Gingrich care fan club at du - your pet project is safe.