Scalia: SCOTUS engaging in 'interpretive jiggery-pokery,' arguments are 'pure applesauce'

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act in a landmark decision that will preserve health insurance coverage for millions of Americans. But it is Justice Antonin Scalia who is stealing the show.

Scalia is known for the deft use of his pen, and he really let fly in his dissent, arguing against the decision with as much color as one could expect from a Supreme Court justice. In accusing the majority of rewriting the law to save ObamaCare, he wrote, "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

The majority's claim that portions of the law "presuppose" that federal subsidies should be made available to states that do not establish health care exchanges is, Scalia writes, "interpretive jiggery-pokery."

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

How about the court's interpretation of what designates a qualified individual? "Pure applesauce" to Scalia.

But he saved his cannon shot for his penultimate paragraph, writing that the decision reflects "the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."

He concluded, as if we didn't already know, "I dissent."