Judge Napolitano Slams SCOTUS Ruling on ObamaCare
[rush transcript]
HEMMER: “Chief Justice John Roberts, joining the more liberal members of the court to vote with them at 6-3 remember during the oral arguments for this case. He did not ask a single question but yet he wrote the decision today. The majority opinion saying Congress passed the Affordable Care act to improve insurance markets, not destroy them. In dissent, Justice Scalia said we should start calling this law SCOTUS-care. That’s a reflection from Justice Scalia after two major decisions have decided the course of this law going back to 2011, again today. 6-3 ruling and the significant win of that gives the Obama administration, the president upholding nationwide tax subsidies in the health care overall law. Preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. This is something that will continue to be debated. King versus Burwell the case. 6-3 ruling just a moment ago. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, with me now. Immediate reaction from you, judge. We talked about this for months. What do you think now?”
NAPOLITANO: “My immediate reaction is that the chief justice has yet again resorted to nearly unheard of construction in order to save the statute. Last time around, when the government said it was not a tax and the challengers said it was not a tax, the chief justice ruled it was a tax and that saved it. This time around he took the plain meaning of ordinary words established by the states and somehow held that they were ambiguous. And that he could, and majority could correct the ambiguity according to what they thought the drafters meant. Justice Scalia’s dissent is about compelling and stinging as any dissent that I have seen basically saying that the court is now in the business of saving a statute in order to save its reputation. In terms of political side, look this is a major victory for the president's views but it is not a major victory for the president himself because two weeks ago in Germany he attacked very concept of the court coming down with a ruling like this. I suspect you will hear from Josh Earnest in a few minutes, that the president is now joyful of the outcome.”
HEMMER: “The law said with regard of the exchanges, as established by the states. And this court has interpreted that line in the law to mean a much broader definition than many including yourself had thought, correct?”
NAPOLITANO: “Yes. The court has interpreted the phrase to mean as established by the states to mean, established by any government anywhere at any time, which of course includes the three states that have established these and the federal government which established them in 34 states. Justice Scalia says how can there be ambiguity in words that are plain English and to meaning of which each of us knows? The states refers to the 58 states -- excuse me the 50 states. It does not refer to the federal government. But Justice Scalia wrote the dissent. Justice Kennedy went along with the majority.”
