On pragmatic grounds when it comes to the subsidies themselves, yes. I don't have much confidence in Congress and the President in fixing it if it fell apart.
On jurisprudence grounds, no. States means states. Congress didn't anticipate that they couldn't force states to set up their own exchanges. It's not the job of the Executive or the Court to pick up the slack on Congress's lack of foresight and change the bills for them so that they actually work. It's the job of Congress to not pass sloppy legislation.
Are you serious? You think that basic logic and the clear intent should be overridden by something that's basically a typo?
I wonder how you would feel about a typo in a piece of legislation that you support. And, that's the problem here, it's pure partisanship by the conservative justices.
did you even read what I wrote? This is not about a typo. A typo would be if it said "An echange establsshed by the stats." This is a matter of legislators not doing the job making sure the parts of the legislation fit together to make sure it would work in the event some states decided not to pursue their own exchanges.
Usually the fact that most or even all lawmakers don't know something is included in a bill does not legally invalidate that part of the statute as passed. I don't know why that would be any different here when its a case of something not being in the bill even if most of the lawmakers who voted for it would have wanted in it.
Poll
