SCOTUS should restrain itself—but from what?

The Supreme Court has again ruled against those who seek to dismantle Obamacare. This morning I read Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion and Justice Scalia's dissent. The latter was of course more entertaining; if you read SCOTUS opinions primarily for the entertainment value, stick with Scalia, Ginsburg, and maybe Kagan if you're a nerd.

Roberts's opinion, however, is forceful and right: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." Do the tax credits for people buying insurance on the individual exchanges apply only in those states that set up their own exchange? "We doubt that is what Congress meant to do."

It's interesting that both justices appeal to limits on judicial power. Scalia mocks the majority for its expansive understanding of the notion of an exchange "established by the State." The text is clear, he says, and to read it as including the federal exchange means that "words no longer have meaning." Later Scalia's scornful gaze rests on past rulings that upheld much of Obamacare, suggesting that the Court's priority has been not justice or fairness or restraint so much as protecting this particular law. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he quips. (Sure, except for that whole crippling-the-Medicaid-expansion thing. SCOTUScare: Like original Obamacare, except meaner to poor people since 2012.)