# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 193
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/193 "2014-07-21T19:15:21Z")
> [@So - what happens if these lawsuits succeed?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/167): > > [T]he language relating to tax credits specifically allows them only when an exchange is established by the State. Some of the language does suggest that. Other parts of the statute suggest otherwise. I suggest you read the rest of the thread you quoted if you haven’t already, because I don’t think you’ve grappled with the strongest arguments in this post. > [@Bricker](#): > > He ultimately says that the courts should look to the overall purpose and forget the words. No, that’s incorrect. He analyzed it, as I have, as an issue of conflicting meanings of different parts of the statute. > [@Bricker](#): > > But the words show the purpose. Congress intended to incentivize the state exchanges. They expected that states would all have exchanges. That didn’t happen. The courts should not re-write the statute to fix a mistake of that nature. That’s ironic. You contend that the words show the purpose, but you’ll ascribe an intent to Congress about incentives that is not in the words, when the actual purpose–helping poorer people buy healthcare–is all over the statute. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614)._