SCOTUScare, jiggery-pokery, and pure applesauce. Justice Scalia is displeased.

Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia's vote on King v. Burwell was never a mystery. The only question was how ragey his dissent would be. The answer: very. But entertainingly so. Scalia repeatedly upbraids the six corrupt idiots of the majority for their failure to take health care from 6 million people over a minor error in drafting a law.

• "The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says 'Exchange established by the State' it means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.' That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."
• "Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"
• "Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
• "(Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [...] (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)"
• "The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery ... "
• "Otherwise, the Court says, there would be no qualified individuals on federal Exchanges, contradicting (for example) the provision requiring every Exchange to take the ‘interests of qualified individuals’ into account when selecting health plans. ... Pure applesauce."
• "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

SCOTUScare, Obamacare, call it what you want ... what matters is that people aren't going to lose their health insurance, because Scalia lost.