Who says extremist religious sects can't adopt to modernity?
It's actually not technically a niqab (which covers the whole face) because the theological reasoning is different. But, according to the Associated Press, the ISIS rulers of northern Iraqi city of Mosul have ordered shop owners in the city to cover the faces of the mannequins in their showrooms.
Rather than meant to protect female modesty the coverings are apparently an effort to enforce strict interpretations of Sharia law that forbid statues or other representations of the human form.
I think the Halbig decision is terrible: terrible for the insured, terrible for American law (to your point about the corruption of judges who ignore established tenets of construction to reach their predictably preferred political outcome).
But it is also terrible for one group with whom I have no sympathy: Republican governors and state legislators.
As you've probably seen now, coincidentally - at least not by any schedule they had to follow - the 4th Circuit also ruled today on the same Obamacare subsidy question. And they sided with the government.
If you're looking for a silver lining to this morning's ruling dealing a major blow to Obamacare (or rather a major blow to people getting subsidized policies in the states that didn't adopt exchanges), look to the full DC Circuit Court. Given its present make-up (helped along mightily by breaking the filibuster logjam) it seems highly, highly likely that the full DC Circuit will reverse this ruling. The problem is that the question then moves to the Supreme Court, which seems quite likely - given recent decisions - to turn it back again to some version of today's decision. In other words, at some point in the future it seems quite likely that the Supreme Court will gets its opportunity to gut the bill.
This is happening quick. After the DC Circuit invalidated Obamacare's tax credits for the federal exchanges earlier this morning, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a similar ruling upholding those same tax credits.
This conflict between two circuit courts increases the chances of the Supreme Court taking that case to resolve this once and for all, though both cases could end up being reviewed en banc by all the judges on each circuit first.
Today's court ruling gutting the essential tax credits offered under Obamacare relies on a literal reading of one provision of the Affordable Care Act. It seems almost certain that the provision in question suffered from a drafting error.
As we reported earlier this year, those who were in the room as the bill was being written say it was never anyone's intention to limit the tax credits to state-run exchanges. In fact there's no compelling rationale for why Congress would have sought to treat the two exchanges differently for tax purposes. The provision was just drafted poorly.
In ordinary circumstances, Congress would just fix the error. But these are not ordinary times.
To catch you up, at issue was whether the federal government could provide tax credits to people who purchased insurance on the exchanges set up by the federal government. Remember that as originally conceived Obamacare allowed each state to create its own exchange. This was a concession to conservatives and to states, a way to build consensus for the legislation. But as opposition to Obamacare became a Republican rallying cry and a litmus test for conservative credentials, many red states opted not to create their own exchanges. In fact a majority of states opted to rely on the federal exchanges instead.