Congress Isnt Functioning Well News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Language it pointslem with the bill, right? that they were not clear enough in what the actual intent of. >> here's two lawmakers including senate majority leader weighing in. >> two active republican judges sought to undermine a law that was passed in congress, by congress upheld by the supreme court is now benefiting millions of americans. >> i call on the supreme court to take up this case about the issue of subsidies and come to a conclusion on this so people understand what is in the law. >> so two very different views. charles, the court that found the plain language in the law to be, th...

>> reporter: white house aides shot back the second court ruling later in the day shows partisan attempts to repeal the law continue to fail. >> it is pretty clear even to those of us that don't have a fancy legal degree the intent of congress was to ensure every eligible american would have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs. >> reporter: josh earnest said if there's something the president can't do on the the road stay on top of the crises, they will alter the schedule and get him back to washington. stocks were up today. dow gained 62. the s&p 500 added ten. na...

One court said it was ambiguous and thus we'll defer to the irs. the other court said it's not unambiguous. subsidies will only be available to people who get their insurance through the state exchanges. that's not ambiguous at all. the claim of the government is well it was a drafting error and what we really intend was that it should be for k. with well andy mccarthy pointed out even if you accept the defense of the government that it's a drafting error, a drafting error in a bill is still part of the bill and the only instrument in the constitutional system we have that can change an error ...

Going to have to sort this out and they will in the next couple of years. the question is what was congress's intent. the administration has a low bar to overcome before the supreme court. i wouldn't be surprised to see this split pretty much along the lines as it did a couple of years ago. the big issue here is this is another example where congress isn't functioning well. it's not clear what their intent was. administration isn't work well with congress and the courts are playing more an active role in legislating. >> what's interesting is that both courts ruled dinnerly agreed on one thing ...

Intent out of thin air. when you interpret the law you start with the language. if the language is plain, it says you get a subsidy. that's clear. the intent they made a mistake. we actually know the intent. i believe it was a mistake. i believe it was a deliberate thing that the democrats put in the law as a way to create a carrot and stick to force states to go and establish exchanges. the idea was if you told the state if you don't establish an exchange you won't get a subsidy all the states will rally and it will get done. they underestimated the amount of resistance, amount of unhappiness...