Antonin Scalia Summary
Throughout Antonin Scalia’s dissent opinion, he states that the way the court interprets the Affordable Care Act, is different to the way he interprets it. For instance, the interpretation of “exchange established by the state,” and the tax credits under code §36B differs between the court and Scalia. Antonin Scalia argues that the different interpretations of “exchange established by the state” is a big problem because it’s an important part of the Affordable Care Act. The different interpretations of “exchange established by the state” can make a difference too. For example, if people will, or will not get any tax credits under code §36B. Even though the court and Antonin Scalia interprets the words differently, Scalia states that it’s difficult to come up with other words to make it easier to understand. The court has proposed to rewrite the words “exchange established by the state” to make it easier to interpret. However, Scalia says it’s not necessary to rewrite
…show more content…
Nevertheless, Scalia and the court agree on that it’s important to pay attention to the whole law, and not just parts of it when interpreting code §36B. Important to notice when looking at the different interpretations under code §36B,
SUMMARY OF ANTIONIN SCALIA’S DISSENT 3 is that Scalia says that the court nullifies the term “by the State.” That completely changes the outcome of how §36B is interpreted. Antonin Scalia’s dissent opinion argues important points of how the court, and himself interpret the Affordable Care Act differently. The main parts of the Affordable Care Act that Scalia, and the court interpret differently are state exchanges, and code §36B. Even though the Affordable Care Act didn’t have to be rewritten according to Scalia, the court did rewrite parts of
Nevertheless, Scalia and the court agree on that it’s important to pay attention to the whole law, and not just parts of it when interpreting code §36B. Important to notice when looking at the different interpretations under code §36B,
SUMMARY OF ANTIONIN SCALIA’S DISSENT 3 is that Scalia says that the court nullifies the term “by the State.” That completely changes the outcome of how §36B is interpreted. Antonin Scalia’s dissent opinion argues important points of how the court, and himself interpret the Affordable Care Act differently. The main parts of the Affordable Care Act that Scalia, and the court interpret differently are state exchanges, and code §36B. Even though the Affordable Care Act didn’t have to be rewritten according to Scalia, the court did rewrite parts of