At issue in the Obamacare case that today was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court is a very simple question that is far less complex than all the technical rhetoric that was presented to the justices by the oh-so-sophisticated legal geniuses who debated the issues.
The health care law provides for federal subsidies for the costs of insurance purchased through exchanges established by one of America's 50 states. Proponents of the law insist that subsidies also should go to those purchasing coverage through federal exchanges in states that have refused to establish such exchanges.
Thus the core question is whether the court is going to uphold the law as actually written and enacted or as a majority of the justices might be convinced the law would have been written and passed if the Congress had known what it was doing.
The important thing about the outcome is whether, going forward, the nation is going to be subject to the plain meaning of laws as enacted or by decrees of judges speculatively determining what was intended by those writing and enacting our laws. In other words, are we going to be governed by laws actually enacted or by fiats issued by judges who are neither elected by nor accountable to anyone freely guessing -- in accordance with their own personal, political, and social preferences -- what those enacting the laws might have intended. The latter outcome would invite and encourage ever more and greater legislative irresponsibility and put the nation well down a very slippery slope to judicial tyranny.