Justice Scalia Blows a Hole the Size of a U.S. "State" in Roberts' King v. Burwell Tortured-Logic

A dissent that will go down in legal history for the strength of its clear logic in contrast to the contortions of logic offered by the majority (emphasis added):

...Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Actwill attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.  And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

By his dissent, Justice Scalia establishes that at least one American has actually read the complete Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  Take the time to read  his dissent and don't rely on secondary analyses.

Obamacare (now SCOTUScare as Scalia suggests) was built on deceit every step of the way.  Be it:

• Obama: "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.";
•  'Architect' Jonathan Gruber" "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits.";
• Speaker Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It...".

The deceit is now complete with the majority's King v. Burwell decision.