King V Burwell Case Study

King v. Burwell and Judicial Decision-Making Process

The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell surrounded the challenge of provision to the Affordable Care Act. The key question the case focused on was whether Obamacare authorized federal tax subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through a state exchange. The challenger, King, argued the way the law was written can’t allow for states to subsidized insurance through a federal-run exchange. They argued that insurance subsides are only allowed in states that operate their own insurance exchange. Pointing to a clause “established by the state,” the plaintiff argued the way the law, written by members of Congress, authorizes only to tax and subsides in states that established
The Supreme Courts rulings have an effect on the fabric of society as well as have an influence in public policy initiatives. Under Congress, federal judiciary is to prescribe to the rules with the obligations to recommend amendments and promote fairness in administration. Judges are not legislators but are rule of the law in proposing rules and recommend alternative proposals. As badly designed laws are being created, the Courts job is to construed the complexity rather than standing with a law that is flawed. Under this ruling, the majority failed to consider parts of the ACA that contradicts its statute, ignoring what the law states straight out. Scalia along with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito examined the statute being questioned and discredited the majority’s argument. Under their dissent, each exposed how in favor of the administration was playing politics when they pointed out how ACA can’t work if only states instead of federal were involved in tax subsidies. As a result of this ruling, the IRS is over taxing and spending billions more then what Congress intended or