If Scalia's legal philosophy ignores legislative intent then he's less a scoundrel and more an idiot.
I'd stick with scoundrel. I disagreed with you about the reasoning in the OP but not your overall call. The article I referenced goes through Scalia's book on being a judge/justice. Although Scalia does not use legislative intent, he does use a number of 'canons' (57 according to the article) all of which give various results in different situations and from which Scalia can choose in order to reach what will inevitably the most conservative view of any situation.
It is also the case that his approach to Constitutional interpretation is so close to 'legislative history' as to demonstrate that his principled stance on textualism is fraudulent. In particular, Scalia completely mangles history in order to come up with his verdict in DC vs Heller.
What's more, since there were no federal exchanges in the original version of the bill, only state exchanges, having places in the bill that were missed or improperly updated when later revisions were made is precisely the kind of error one would expect.
Exactly. The problem here is not that Scalia is too idiotic to see that issue. The problem is that he just does not give a crap. He thinks that the errors are what we should be stuck with.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams