John’s “Four Reasons the Supreme Court is Likely to Rule Against the Obama Administration in Burwell,” should be correct.

I would like to add an ironic fifth reason: Burwell involves statutory interpretation as applied to a regulation, rather than constitutional jurisprudence–just like Hobby Lobby did. There are pretty specific rules that have to be followed in doing that, leaving less wiggle room for judicial legislating via “living contitutionalism” or updating the charter to meet the modern era.

Thus, it will be more difficult–not impossible, but more difficult–to ignore the clear language of Obamacare regarding subsidies. That could–should–tip the balance of power against the federal regulation (since we know the liberal justices will be entirely result oriented).