First, the attack on Obamacare found in King v. Burwell is one the Supreme Court did not need to hear, as put well in a recent piece by Linda Greenhouse, a contributing columnist for The New York Times. Second the argument being advanced against the Affordable Care Act is one that only the high court’s seemingly unmovable conservatives could or would buy into. It’s a politically driven case, of course, like the other attempts by the right-wing political movement to destroy health-care reform. The right-wing movement instead calls for coddling the privileged and works to make life exceedingly difficult for the vast majority of Americans. If we really need another example of the Supreme Court acting in the worst interests of the nation, we have one – in its decision to hear King v. Burwell. If you need more examples of the high court acting against the interests of the nation time and again, see Erwin Chemerinsky’s new book, The Case Against The Supreme Court.
On King v. Burwell, see the following spot-on pieces on why the legal argument against a few words regarding tax credits in the ACA ultimately fails (the tax breaks help many low-income Americans afford health care coverage, a serious intent of the law.):
Greenhouse’s “Law in the Raw,” from The New York Times’ opinion pages, where she writes that it “would take an agenda-driven act of judicial will” for the court to ignore long-held precedent – Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. – to uphold the argument in King v. Burwell.
E.J. Dionne Jr.’s “Will Obamacare separate Scalia from his principles?” from The Washington Post, where he notes even “many neutral legal analysts” were stunned that four justices would even “take up an absurd legal challenge to the health-care law,” and especially before seeing if a circuit split would stand.
Timothy S. Jost's "The Truth and Myth Behind Latest Challenge to Health Care Law" from ACSblog, where the Washington and Lee University School of Law professor writes that Supreme Court justices might ignore congressional intent, but "cannot ignore the text" of Obamacare.
And Yale Law School professor Abbe R. Gluck’s piece at SCOTUSblog, “The grant in King – Obamacare subsidies as textualism’s big test.”