Rodriguez de Quijas v. Today's case shows why. Section 510 does not distinguish between vested and un- vested benefits. Such a journey is inappropriate. Unless an ambiguous term needs construction, a court should stop with the stat- utory language.
Interpretation is a contextual enterprise, and the prin- cipal context of sec.
To resolve this supposed contra- diction the district court limited sec. Yet a court should endeavor to apply all parts of a statute whenever possible. Tensions among stat- utory provisions are common. Legislation reflects com- promise among competing interests. That employers won a battle and secured the right to modify plans, while em- ployees prevailed in a different skirmish and secured the right to qualify for benefits under existing plans, shows no more than that each side could claim some victories.