[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

In Canada, AFAIK, the legislative history of a law counts for very little at the Supreme Court. How much weight does the SCOTUS usually give to the legislative debates, etc. that lead to the passage of a law — as opposed to a plain-language reading of the text of the actual law?

[SeekAndFind]

In this case, the Plain language was placed there PRECISELY because it already went through the debates. The fact that it PLAINLY states what it says means that what was not included was filtered out AFTER the debates.

[InterceptPoint]

The legislative history in this case is evidence that the plain language of the bill is in agreement with the legislative intent.

Here is why:

The original version of the ACA allowed subsidies for both Federal and State Exchanges. That language was REMOVED and replaced with the State Exchange only text. A fair court would always rule in favor of the plain language argument in this case.

Do we have a fair court? I wonder.