Alright 'ludin',
I see you want to concentrate on the details (a specific word, 'state', in the singular) rather than the totality of the law (What is the logical intention? Is the detail in question cohesive with other details in the body of the law? Is there consistency?). This is what the Justices ruled on, not the specific detail you keep pounding on.
you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
the part that references the subsidies does not mention anything about federal based exchanges. it is plain and clear. it is not ambiguous or anything else.
when this was realized because no one read the bloody bill the IRS took it on themselves to change the bill (unconstitutional) the IRS does not have the power to change law.
the next issue is that HHS is not a state nor does it have the authority to act as a state or represent a state. the SCOTUS GOT IT WRONG.
they ignored past precedent and ignored the law and the constitution. the HHS and the federal government now has the ability to be a state something that
would have the founding fathers rolling in their grave. just like when this SCOTUS upheld that the government can now force you to buy a product as long as they tax you.
don't want to buy a chevy? to bad you get to otherwise the federal government can issue a tax against you if you don't and it is legal.
this is the problem that these guys get themselves into when they rule based on their political ideology instead of the constitution like they are supposed to.
there is no consistency. the federal government and the HHS is not a state nor do they have the constitutional authority to represent the state but now they do.
thanks to this unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS.
I saw these legal arguments made in the case docs when the case was submitted, and apparently these arguments prevailed, or the decision would not have been for the ACA.
it had nothing to do with the law or the constitution it was 100% political which is why this SCOTUS should be removed from the bench.
I haven't reviewed the decision or opinion yet, but you have spurred me on to do this (I've been meaning to). If you haven't already, maybe you might look at the decision & the opinions to find out why your argument was ruled against.
6 judges ruled against you - I believe they all committed opinions.
I could careless what they ruled what part about that don't you get? THEY WERE WRONG in their ruling.
you seem to not care and just want to pander.
they passed it based on politics not the rule of law or the constitution.