Alternative title if we could write longer diary titles, to really drive the point home:
"If the federal government wanted to penalize states that let the federal government set up an exchange for them, why didn't the federal government penalize the states that let the federal government set up the exchanges for them?"
Either way, either title excellently sums up the "through the looking glass" element of King v. Burwell for me, though there's plenty of that to go around. I know there's been a good bit of discussion on how absurd this all is, but I'm not sure I've seen things put in quite these terms before.
In other words, I think it's fair to say that the intent of the law can be very clearly discerned from how the law has been carried out.
That said, I chose my title wording for a reason -- namely, that a bunch of states let the federal government set up exchanges for them. Because that's what happened. And to me, that sounds a lot like an implicit request from the states asking the federal government to set up state exchanges.
One might even go so far as to say that an implicit request from a state asking the federal government to set up an exchange in the state would indeed count as the state establishing the exchange, making intent a moot point.
There's also an aspect to the case that would normally strike me as the most absurd thing about it, but is instead reduced to third billing thanks to the issues mentioned above. Basically, as far as I understand it, the whole reason this was granted standing is because the plaintiffs are claiming harm from something that has already been judicially upheld as a tax.
I had thought that taxes (in the US at least) really weren't contestable in court, but then again, we're through the looking glass here, people.