Breaking: SCOTUS to consider ACA subsidies

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It should be 9-0 on this dumb challenge. I'll say 6-3.

No it should be 8-1.  The reasoning of the plaintiffs is just the sort to appeal to Thomas' limited comprehension.

While technically there is not a circuit split, that's only because the ruling against in the DC Circuit was referred to an en banc review.  The argument that this should ideally be resolved quickly is not unreasonable and may have led to some justices who are in favor of allowing the subsidies to continue to push for the case to be heard rather than leaving the question dangling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It'll be pretty hilarious (in a very dark way) when a right-wing activist judge is responsible for the largest tax hike in American history.

Not really.  Without the subsidies, the health plans will be expensive enough that for most people there won't exist for them an option cheap enough to trigger the tax penalty for non-coverage if they don't have it.  It might get some of those in the 300-400% FPL level, but few if any wage earners would face the tax for not having coverage., and those at the 300%+ level weren't getting that much in the way of subsidy in the first place.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The coverage that I've read indicates that if the subsidies were struck, they'd likely simply end with no further subsidies on the federal exchange but no requirement to pay back any subsidies already paid out.  As already pointed out, it's inconceivable that the Obama administration would seek to claw back existing subsidies, and I can't imagine even a future Republican administration being so tone deaf as to try that.