Scalia in ACA Dissent: "words no longer have meaning" - to which I say . . .

Scalia, fulminating over the majority's determination that the intended meaning of the word 'state,' in the phrase "exchanges established by the State," is ambiguous when considered in light of the bill's overall objectives of insuring the uninsured, and also in the context of the regulatory scheme put in place by the ACA, sputters that "words no longer have meaning" if that phrase can be interpreted to include exchanges established by the federal government.

To that I say . . .

If the definition of 'person' can be construed to include 'corporation,' and if the definition of 'speech' can be construed to include 'money,' then I'm pretty sure both the language and the republic will survive construing 'State' to include 'federal' in this particular context!