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.
"The Court claims that the language was ambiguous."
The intent was obvious. Set up an exchange and be rewarded. Don't, and be punished.
And I suppose the word "penalty" was ambiguous, too. Roberts concluded Congress didn't mean "penalty" when they wrote "penalty". They meant "tax".
The reason being, Obamacare was unconstitutional if it imposed a penalty. So the Democrats passed legislation claiming they didn't raise taxes one penny (merely a "penalty" for those who chose not to participate), and the court changed it to a "tax" to make it constitutional.
