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? Why make the differentiation between states that set up exchanges and states that didn't?
The Court claims that the language was ambiguous. Apparently, there is an established precedent that defers the interpretation of ambiguous language to the government agency in charge (the IRS).
I just don't see how the word "States" is ambiguous.
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?
Language smalanguage. Why does it even matter? We live under the whims of the moment - not a Constitution. We are officially lawless
The powers that be have dictated we shall have Zero-care - and Zero-care we shall have.
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 ?
