That was well explained and blows my mind a court is wasting any time on that.

Here we have the convention when drafting legislation that the conjunction ‘and’ at the end of a list it means all things in the list- so A, B, and C. Whereas if ‘or’ appears, it means a choice from the list.

I get that maybe once upon a time there needed to be clarification in the courts, but that cannot me the first time such a drafting approach has been taken in legislation in the USA and so an interpretation must have been established already?

I can see why contextually there could be room for either interpretation, but it’s astonishing a consistent interpretation hasn’t been established.