When Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/ACA) in 2010, they did so with intentions to improve the United States’ current health care system by creating a healthcare reform overhaul aimed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans while providing them with more affordable health insurance. However, this law and its robust provisions have doubted many of its effectiveness since its inception. In the King v. Burwell case, the question the Courts are faced with is whether or not the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) properly interpreted the ACA that would allow them to legally enforce regulations to allow tax-credit subsidies to those covered through federally facilitated Exchanges under section 1321 of the ACA. In conjunction with this issue, ACA opponents are …show more content…
In his response to General Verrilli, Solicitor General for this case, Scalia points out that, “…It may not be the statute they intended. The question is whether it's the statute that they wrote.” —From this one could assume that he would be more inclined to rule in favor of an argument that promoted the aforementioned analysis regarding not applying the absurdity exception rule to this case. Conversely, while Scalia’s interpretation generally leads him toward sticking to the plain meaning of the text, he condemns textualist who use a textual interpretation that is exclusively literal while, at the same time, promoting a version of textual interpretation that is holistic and contextual—he does this as a result of Mr. Carvin’s attempt to destroy the statute at all cost. Scalia states that there is no greater interpretive failure that is common than that of the failure to follow the entire text in the understanding of its structure and of the physical and abstract relation of its multifaceted