Unrealistic to that Congress really understands holdings of cases it references. feeling for a “Heady lowly staffer” Scalia, Concurring in Blanchard v. Bergeron – Some actors may deliberately manipulate LH to circumvent the process Concerns that judges acquire added policymaking discretion through use of LH b/c LH is relatively elastic, open to interp. Purpose of the statute as a whole What is the mischief? Legislative Hist. Bill itself Statute’s title (Church of Holy Trinity) Overall structure created by statutory scheme Preamble Absurdity Doctrine: leg interp’ed so as to avoid absurd results. Where absurdity would result , reason of law should prevail over its letter. Assumption: the legislators (or their constituents) represent a cross-section of society, Court presumes application that is contrary to widely/deeply held values (“common sense”) must represent a failure of expression or foresight, which legislators would have corrected had it come to their attention Intentionalist/purposivist modes of stat interp. Even textualists have endorsed absurdity doctrine: in case of true absurdity, courts conclude absurd result couldn’t possibly be product of deliberate compromise U.S v. Kirby (U.S. 1868): Arrest of mailman for murder was not obstruction of the mail within the meaning of the act. Court applies balancing test: inconvenience from delay of mail v. extending “public immunity to a criminal. Public Citizen v. DOJ (U.S. 1989) Where the literal meaning of a statutory term would an “compel odd result” we must search for other evidence of congressional intent to lend the term its proper care.
Unrealistic to that Congress really understands holdings of cases it references. “Heady feeling for a lowly staffer” – Scalia, Concurring in Blanchard v. Bergeron Some actors may deliberately manipulate LH to circumvent the process Concerns that judges acquire added policymaking discretion through use of LH b/c LH is relatively elastic, open to interp. Purpose of the statute as a whole What is the mischief? Legislative Hist. Bill itself Statute’s title (Church of Holy Trinity) Overall structure created by statutory scheme Preamble Absurdity Doctrine: leg interp’ed so as to avoid absurd results. Where absurdity would result , reason of law should prevail over its letter. Assumption: the legislators (or their constituents) represent a cross-section of society, Court presumes application that is contrary to widely/deeply held values (“common sense”) must represent a failure of expression or foresight, which legislators would have corrected had it come to their attention Intentionalist/purposivist modes of stat interp. Even textualists have endorsed absurdity doctrine: in case of true absurdity, courts conclude absurd result couldn’t possibly be product of deliberate compromise U.S v. Kirby (U.S. 1868): Arrest of mailman for murder was not obstruction of the mail within the meaning of the act. Court applies balancing test: “public inconvenience from delay of mail v. extending immunity to a criminal. Public Citizen v. DOJ (U.S. 1989) Where the literal meaning of a statutory term would “compel an odd result” we must search for other evidence of congressional intent to lend the term its proper care.
ARS_GINSBURG_2012.docx