The 381,517 words of the President’s health care law may be a lot for Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to read, but the Supreme Court should have had no trouble with four. At the heart of the King v. Burwell ObamaCare case was one simple question: Did the words “established by the state” actually mean “established by the state?” “You would think the answer would be obvious,” Justice Antonin Scalia said, “so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

Unfortunately for Americans, nothing is obvious in Washington anymore — not even the plain language of the written law. In one breathtaking move, six justices chose to ignore those four words — and with it, Congress’s clear intent on the President’s health care exchange. Together, they gave the White House another license for lawlessness, costing Americans billions of dollars in illegal subsidies in the process.

Back in 2010, when the President hatched his idea for health care, he knew that many people wouldn’t buy his insurance if they had to pay full price. So, he created a system for financial aid, which offset the cost for people who made less than a certain income. Those subsidies, however, were supposed to be an incentive for states to set up their own health care exchange. When 34 didn’t, the administration panicked. They knew ObamaCare would collapse without those benefits bringing more people into the system. So the Obama IRS did what it does best: pretended those four words (like Lois Lerner’s emails) didn’t exist.

By 2012, the agency was pumping out subsidies to Americans everywhere — not just the ones in exchanges “established by the state.” As a result, 87% the people on ObamaCare are getting some kind of health care handout “partly or wholly at someone else’s expense,” the Wall Street Journal explained. “…The annual subsidy amounts to $3,312 per recipient. Which is excellent if you’re one of the recipients.”

So far, the IRS’s free-for-all has cost taxpayers an extra $30 billion. And the Supreme Court, which had an opportunity to stop the bleeding, didn’t. Through “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” as Scalia called it, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that “the phrase [‘established by the state’] may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges,” but claimed “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges — both State and Federal.”

Once again, the Court has subjected a law passed by Congress to linguistic gymnastics to salvage its faltering performance. Surely, Roberts wrote, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” But if the law collapsed because of how it was written, that’s Congress’s problem. It was neither the IRS’s role — nor the Court’s — to rewrite and rescue it. “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections,” Justice Scalia argued along with colleagues Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. “Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, whycontext matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms ofthe law, not an excuse for rewriting them.”

As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said earlier [Thursday], “The only thing that is more disappointingly flawed than today’s decision on what ObamaCare actually meant is ObamaCare itself.” If the Court won’t address the plain language of the law, Congress must. Fortunately, there are still hundreds of conservatives on Capitol Hill who are determined to undo ObamaCare’s freedom-crushing, conscience-violating, abortion-funding reality. If anything, this will ignite an even bigger fire.

“The politicians who forced ObamaCare on the American people now have a choice,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters, “crow about Obamacare’s latest wobble towards the edge, or work with us to address the ongoing negative impact of a 2,000-page law that continues to make life miserable for too many of the same people it purported to help.”

In the meantime, Justice Scalia was right — words do matter. And the one that should be on every conservative’s lips is simple: Repeal.

Meadows No Longer Trampled by Leaders

The vacancy at the House’s Government Operations subcommittee didn’t last long. Less than a week after GOP leaders booted Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) from his chairmanship, Republicans have apparently reconsidered. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who made the initial decision after Mark broke with Republicans on a rule vote, says he’s had a chance to talk to Meadows several times over the past week and managed to hash through their issues. “I think we both better understand each other,” the Utah conservative told reporters. Mark’s reinstatement was a rare and pleasant surprise in a party structure that hasn’t allowed much room for disagreement.

Of course, the decision came in large part because of the outpouring of support for Rep. Meadows by people like you, who responded to the Update and my daily “Washington Watch” radio show by contacting the House and voicing your disappointment. I did as well, and I’m grateful after those conversations that GOP leaders responded to the concerns of conservatives and backed off their actions. “Obviously,” Rep. Chaffetz said, “I believe in Mark Meadows or I would not have appointed him to this position in the first place. It is in the best interest of the committee to move forward together.” We agree — and look forward to working with both men on the enormous task of government reform.

Exempt from Contempt?

There aren’t many instances when the New York Times agrees with Christian conservatives — but the fallout over same-sex “marriage” is one. In [Wednesday’s] edition, the paper gives legs to the growing fear that the church and faith-based groups are in for a rocky ride if the Supreme Court redefines marriage in America. Like us, they take the threat of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli very seriously that the tax exemptions of religious schools, charities, colleges, and other nonprofits are almost certainly on the line with the Court’s ruling.

“If I were a conservative Christian,” said law professor Eugene Volokh, “(which I most certainly am not), I would be very reasonably fearful, not just as to tax exemptions but as to a wide range of other programs — fearful that within a generation or so, my religious beliefs would be treated the same way as racist religious beliefs are.” With surprising concern, the Times tackled a laundry list of threats to colleges, like married housing, dating, and spousal benefits policies — highlighting the letter FRC sent to Congress from more than 70 religious schools, asking for a legislative shield from a post-marriage government.

Last week, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) offered such a shield in the form of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). Under his measure, the government would be barred from retaliating against individuals, organizations, and small business owners who believe in natural marriage. No person or nonprofit should lose tax exempt status, face disqualification, lose a professional license or be punished by the federal government simply for believing what President Obama believed just three years ago, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Whether it’s religious institutions competing for federal research grants or partnerships with development service providers like the Salvation Army, the federal government shouldn’t push these organizations out of the public square simply because they believe in marriage between a man and a woman. If you agree, contact your senators and urge them to support FADA — before it’s too late.

And Jindal Makes 13…

In the race for President, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) said, “it’s time for a doer.” And Republicans will have a hard time finding a more qualified one. The two-term governor of Louisiana hasn’t wasted a minute of his seven and a half years in office, a powerful contrast to the Chief Executive down the street from FRC. As someone who’s worked with Bobby and calls the state that he’s radically improved as home, I know firsthand the sacrifices he’s had to make and the political opposition he has faced.

A solid conservative man of faith, Bobby has spent a lot of political capital doing the right thing. In the face of some of the fiercest opposition, when America’s other governors have turned and run, Louisiana’s stood strong. On religious liberty, he was a rock — passing strong protections for men and women of faith despite the Left’s intimidation machine. “We don’t support discrimination in Louisiana and we do support religious liberty,” Jindal said unequivocally. “These two values can be upheld at the same time.”

A staunch supporter of marriage and life, Bobby has never backed down from the hard issues. He overhauled the state’s health care system, backed away from Common Core, and, as my fellow Louisianan Erick Erickson pointed out, privatized the state’s industry and forced it out of the nineteenth century. “He was the governor that Louisiana desperately needed, but is, because of that, now the governor it no longer really wants. He did what had to be done…”

Throughout his career, people have admired the governor because he embraces what’s in the best interest of his state — not what’s in the best interest of Bobby Jindal. That’s what makes him qualified to lead. And it’s also what makes him a worthy opponent to other conservatives.

---

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.