While Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a blow to ObamaCare foes with a majority opinion upholding subsidies, he backed up the law's opponents on one point: The language in the Affordable Care Act was kind of a mess.
"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting," he wrote.
The 6-3 Supreme Court decision Thursday upheld the legality of ObamaCare subsidies nationwide. The case centered on language in the law that technically limited subsidies to those who purchase insurance in exchanges established by the states.
Opponents argued this rendered subsidies invalid for insurance purchased through the federal HealthCare.gov.
But Roberts and the majority ruled that Congress never intended that. "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid," he wrote.
Further, the majority opinion reasoned that the law itself was poorly written, and so the court must look to Congress' intent -- rather than the specific language in the law itself.
"Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through 'the traditional legislative process,'" Roberts wrote.
He proceeded to cite process issues that Republicans have long complained contributed to the bill being rushed.
Roberts wrote: "And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as 'reconciliation,' which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate's normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. ...
