about text, a result statistically significant at 99% confidence. We see policy battles being much more common during Democratic administrations. There was indeed a statistically significant and noticeable decline in the use of policy by Republican-dominated Boards; whereas 44% of Republican Boards used policy as the primary interpretive tool during the Clinton years, that figure dropped to 18% in the Bush administration, with Republican Board members turning instead to relying more on text. Note should also be made of the decline of the use of precedent over time. Whereas we see precedent battle being quite frequent during the Clinton years, in recent years, policy battles have replaced precedent battles as the lightening rod between partisans on the Board. Table 11: Dueling Methodologies, by Majority of Panel and Administration T>P P>T Policy T>T Precedent Statute Dem. 6 13 50 0*** 25 6 Maj/Clinton Rep. 0 0* 44* 0 56 0 Maj./Clinton 14 14 14 43*** 13 0 Dem. Maj./Bush II Rep. Maj./Bush II 18 35* 18* 0 29 4 Dem. Maj/ 25 13 38 13*** 14 0 Rep. Maj./Obama 0 100* 100* 0 0 0 Figure 13 In addition to the overall method, the Board also duels over different methodologies. Each case can have multiple methodologies; for instance, both the majority and dissent may on legislative history, text and “duel” policy. We see that the majority and the dissent duel in most cases, at least in part, on policy (86%), though in most cases policy considerations are a secondary factor to consider to buttress either a text-based or argument. But they also often on textual meaning (33%), at “duel” least in part. Dueling over text almost always occurs if there is a Republican majority. In most cases these duels on textual meaning take one of three forms: 1) one side argues for an expansionist interpretation of a term while another side contends that the term should be interpreted more narrowly or argues that policy considerations should predominate; 2) one side argues that certain Latin/language canons should be applied to inform the textual meaning of the term while the dissent feels the opposite; or 3) one side feels that the text’s meaning is plain while the other feels that it is ambiguous.
about text, a result statistically significant at 99% confidence. We see policy battles being much more common during Democratic administrations. There was indeed a statistically significant and noticeable decline in the use of policy by Republican-dominated Boards; whereas 44% of Republican Boards used policy as the primary interpretive tool during the Clinton years, that figure dropped to 18% in the Bush administration, with Republican Board members turning instead to relying more on text. Note should also be made of the decline of the use of precedent over time. Whereas we see precedent battle being quite frequent during the Clinton years, in recent years, policy battles have replaced precedent battles as the lightening rod between partisans on the Board. Table 11: Dueling Methodologies, by Majority of Panel and Administration T>P P>T Policy T>T Precedent Statute Dem. Maj/Clinton 6 13 50 0*** 25 6 Rep. Maj./Clinton 0 0* 44* 0 56 0 Dem. Maj./Bush II 14 14 14 43*** 13 0 Rep. Maj./Bush II 18 35* 18* 0 29 4 Dem. Maj/ 25 13 38 13*** 14 0 Rep. Maj./Obama 0 100* 100* 0 0 0 Figure 13 In addition to the overall method, the Board also duels over different methodologies. Each case can have multiple methodologies; for instance, both the majority and dissent may “duel” on legislative history, text and policy. We see that the majority and the dissent duel in most cases, at least in part, on policy (86%), though in most cases policy considerations are a secondary factor to consider to buttress either a text-based or argument. But they also often “duel” on textual meaning (33%), at least in part. Dueling over text almost always occurs if there is a Republican majority. In most cases these duels on textual meaning take one of three forms: 1) one side argues for an expansionist interpretation of a term while another side contends that the term should be interpreted more narrowly or argues that policy considerations should predominate; 2) one side argues that certain Latin/language canons should be applied to inform the textual meaning of the term while the dissent feels the opposite; or 3) one side feels that the text’s meaning is plain while the other feels that it is ambiguous.
semet_statutory_interpretation.docx