I thank the Court for it’s careful consideration of this important matter. Though I continue to maintain the interpretive position that I advanced in my brief, the Court’s opinion–particularly its attention to the second use of “rescind” in the relevant provision–has convinced me that the question is a much closer one than I initially thought. More importantly, both HS’s response on behalf of the CRS and the Court’s references to the legislative history (or lack thereof) regarding the purpose and meaning of this provision lead me to believe that some discussion in the Assembly on this matter may be warranted. If we are to have such a provision, it seems we should formulate a clear view of exactly what we want it to do and how we want it to operate.
To close, I thank the Court again for its patient consideration of my lengthy arguments in both this case and the other I filed.