What a bunch of political gerrymandering and BS !!! The "law" means nothing from this point on!
Scalia does a good job of carving it up. It's looking more and more like a unitary government, all in the employ of the same corporate interests.
Scalia, joined by Thomas and Alito, dissenting at 19-20:
Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Acts limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. If Congress values above everything else the Acts applicability across the country, it could make tax credits available in every Exchange. If it prizes state involvement in the Acts implementation, it could continue to limit tax credits to state Exchanges while taking other steps to mitigate the economic consequences predicted by the Court. If Congress wants to accommodate both goals, it could make tax credits available everywhere while offering new incentives for States to set up their own Exchanges. And if Congress thinks that the present design of the Act works well enough, it could do nothing. Congress could also do something else altogether, entirely abandoning the structure of the Affordable Care Act. The Courts insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.
Just ponder the significance of the Courts decision to take matters into its own hands. The Courts revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Acts individual mandate, whose scope depends in part on the availability of credits. What a parody todays decision makes of Hamiltons assurances to the people of New York: The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment. The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).