Paul Krugman: Is the Supreme Court going to f*ck us again?

[unblock]

6. but courts don't just say hah! there's a typo, throw it all out --

they look at other factors. they look at other provisions, they look at the intent (if it's clear) and they look at the impact. in the case of contracts, they even look at who drafted it.

if everything i'm hearing about this facts of this case are correct, then, even with this court, i have a tough time thinking that they would determine that the individual federal tax benefits were intended to be dependent on state acceptance of the medicare expansion.

moreover, i don't think roberts would allow his controversial decision upholding the case previously over a very consequential matter to be upended over a matter of trivia. not saying he was proud of the earlier decision or that he's a fan of the aca, but he took a lot of heat over it and it makes him look serious and legit to do that sort of thing. if he goes along with this silliness and guts the law, he just looks like a cowed buffoon.