Did the court answer the question of why that language was put in there to begin with? Why make the differentiation between states that set up exchanges and states that didn't?
Did the court answer the question of why that language was put in there to begin with?
I'll read the decsion later ;but the short answer is probably not . SCOTUS doesn't believe in the plain language of the Constitution .Why would they concern themselves with the plain language of a law ?
The court ignored the actual wording. Then the court ignored the intent of the wording. Instead, the court addressed the intent of the overall legislation and the court determined the best way to accomplish it.
Given the court's decision, there's no benefit now for a state to run an exchange. And what if the feds can't afford to run them and Obamacare goes bust? Oops. I guess that what happens when the court tries to write legislation instead of simply ruling on it.
