Halbig

Yah, well, let's see if the Judicial branch maintains its legitimacy by ruling on the plain meaning of the text.

Here's the House's finding:

This joint staff report shows that IRS and Treasury arrived at the decision to extend premium subsidies to federal exchanges without a thorough or proper analysis. There is simply no evidence that IRS conducted an adequate analysis of this issue prior to the issuance of the

proposed rule. 

On three separate occasions, IRS and Treasury employees were unable to provide the Committees with detailed information about the factors they considered before determining

that premium subsidies should be allowed in federal exchanges

When the potential illegality of the rule was raised by members of the general public and Members of Congress after the publication of the proposed rule, the evidence suggests that

IRS and Treasury once again failed to conduct a careful review and simply reiterated their

original assertions

.

While prior to the proposed rule, IRS and Treasury’s failure to conduct an adequate review of whether the text of law and PPACA’s legislative history supported its interpretation was largely due to other pressing priorities with the 36B regulation

....those "priorites" being political, of course. 

IRS did not bother with either the history of the bill, nor its plain language.  What governed the IRS' decision (made by Chief Counsel) was Obozoites at HHS who understood that if the law was implemented AS WRITTEN, residents of 36 States would suffer huge increases in health-insurance premiums.  

And the (D) Party would not survive the elections of '12, '14, or '16--or perhaps ever.