Another prominent Republican, one of six who joined an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take health insurance subsidies away
from millions of people, has
found himself arguing against himself in that brief.
Back in 2010, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he expounded on what he called a constitutional defect in the law: that it "commands" the states to set up health insurance exchanges. Hatch even argues against himself in this very statement. He says "[t]his is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them." The states have a choice, he says, and if the states decide not to, the federal government can step in, and the state will still receive federal funds. Those federal funds would be the subsidies now in question, because the only other federal funds provided in regards to exchanges were grants to states to set up their exchanges.
But Hatch is now arguing in this brief that the law "provides that premium subsidies are available only through an exchange established by a State," directly contradicting Hatch of 2010 who knew very well at the time what Congress intended—subsidies to everyone only on the basis of income. Which demonstrates either a feeble-mindedness, selective memory, or craven politics on Hatch's part. What it definitely demonstrates is that arguments before the court by Republican politicians aren't worth the paper they're printed on.