Do you remember this summer’s news that the writers of the Obamacare law left a significant loophole regarding subsidies? Basically, funding for the whole system could collapse because the law limited eligibility for tax breaks to people who purchased plans through state exchanges. The writers of the law didn’t know that 36 states wouldn’t even create exchanges. Anyone who signed up through the federal exchange is not eligible to receive a subsidy – though they still have to pay the taxes funding coverage for other people.

That’s what the law said, anyway. But clearly, it doesn’t matter what the law says. Those responsible to enforce the law are interpreting Obamacare as its creators wanted it to be enforced, not how it’s written. They don’t even abide by things that are clearly spelled out in the law.

The IRS thought differently on the subsidy matter, so it made up a regulation fixing the problem. Someone validly pointed out that the IRS had no authority to do that – and several cases went to court. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the law meant what it said, while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the IRS.

Now, the Supreme Court says it will hear the case.

If the Supreme Court rules that the law means what it says, it could sound the death knell for Obamacare as we know it.

Matthew Clark at ACLJ reports,

The fact is if the subsidies don’t stand – the major funding mechanism that made it even remotely possible for many families to comply with the individual mandate – then ObamaCare would likely collapse on itself. We’ve always said ObamaCare was flawed and couldn’t sustain itself.

Already, Obamacare supporters are rabidly defending the IRS rule. Most say it’s only correcting what the law was really meant to say – admitting the law’s designers couldn’t get it right the first time around. Less coherent defenses call the challenge “frivolous” and anyone who seriously considers it to have merit “corrupt.”

To that, David French responds:

Let’s be clear, applying the law as written isn’t “corruption,” it’s vital to democracy. And if the law as written doesn’t work, it must be corrected through a democratic process, not regulatory fiat.

And this time around, President Obama is much less likely to find a sympathetic audience in Congress.

This should be interesting.