A slight amplification if it is not too late. Roberts points out that statutes are ambiguous for several different reasons one of which is that the drafters deliberately were evasive in order to secure the votes necessary for passage. That is correct/ Adminstrative Lawyers call that l "studied ambiguity." But it seems that Robert's is sa…
A slight amplification if it is not too late. Roberts points out that statutes are ambiguous for several different reasons one of which is that the drafters deliberately were evasive in order to secure the votes necessary for passage. That is correct/ Adminstrative Lawyers call that l "studied ambiguity." But it seems that Robert's is saying that i in such cases, it is up to the Court to decide whether the Bill would have passed had the statute been clarified before the vote Is that how this decision is to be understood? And, if so, how is the Majority to decide that a particular statute was studied ambiguity in light of the fact that that often emerges from a close reading of the Legislative History which the Majority say is irrelevant?\
I'm getting a bit lost in the details here, but I think the short version is that this is going to be a big fight going forward--about exactly how far past the text of a statute courts should go in trying to answer that question.
The APA says the court's can only reject a rule if it is arbitrary ,capricious or contrary to law. Once you get passed the contrary to law--which is whether Congress delegated the power--- it is none of the Court's business what Congress intended or how the vote would have goneif a different statute had been passed.
A slight amplification if it is not too late. Roberts points out that statutes are ambiguous for several different reasons one of which is that the drafters deliberately were evasive in order to secure the votes necessary for passage. That is correct/ Adminstrative Lawyers call that l "studied ambiguity." But it seems that Robert's is saying that i in such cases, it is up to the Court to decide whether the Bill would have passed had the statute been clarified before the vote Is that how this decision is to be understood? And, if so, how is the Majority to decide that a particular statute was studied ambiguity in light of the fact that that often emerges from a close reading of the Legislative History which the Majority say is irrelevant?\
I'm getting a bit lost in the details here, but I think the short version is that this is going to be a big fight going forward--about exactly how far past the text of a statute courts should go in trying to answer that question.
The APA says the court's can only reject a rule if it is arbitrary ,capricious or contrary to law. Once you get passed the contrary to law--which is whether Congress delegated the power--- it is none of the Court's business what Congress intended or how the vote would have goneif a different statute had been passed.