The correlation is that those beaming over the DC court ruling don't seem to give a shit about the implications of that ruling which is that millions of people will no longer be able to afford insurance if they get their way and the ruling stands.
But hey, they got theirs and that's what's important.
This is a very impassioned and compassionate plea, an emotional appeal, but this is sufficient to permit or justify the federal judiciary to no longer adhere to the plain text of a statute and espouse an alternate reading not supported by the text of the statute. In this instance, the federal judiciary, in adopting a reading of the statute not based on its plain text but resorting instead to what a documented
few people intended the law to say, involves itself in the midst of a political dialogue best resolved within the halls of Congress, where political decisions codified into law is supposed to transpire. If the statute fails to accomplish some goal, then it is for Congress to remedy and recitfy, for Congress and the political system to address and subsequently, if the political process permits or demands it, to amend the statute, as opposed to the federal judiciary. This implication isn't the fault of the D.C. Circuit ruling but a result of poor drafting by Congress.
It is but a truism the D.C. Circuit ruling will affect people, just as many other decisions issued by the federal judiciary has such a result. The federal judiciary deciding cases necessarily has the result of impacting peoples' lives and this is an inherent part of deciding cases and issuing rulings. The fact the D.C. Circuit ruling, along with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, will affect people, isn't some new or novel concept.
However, I perceive your unstated point to be the affect is undesirous but this is a mere matter of opinion. For some, the affect, or the implications of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is absolutely desirous. The federal judiciary shouldn't be interpreting the law or statute on the basis of whether some implication is or isn't desirous by members of the public, or is/isn't palatable by some segment of the population. This is for the legislature to address, the institution specifically conceived to measure, gauge, and assess public sentiment and then decide whether to act and determine how they should specifically proceed, or if they should do anything at all.
I have, however, begun reading through the amicus brief you cited. So far, the evidence cited in the brief, ambiguously supports the contention the intent was subsidies for both exchanges.