November 14, 2014

Quote of the Day

"But this Court does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address. Truth be told, such anomalies often arise from statutes, if for no other reason than that Congress typically legislates by parts -- addressing one thing without examining all others that might merit comparable treatment. Rejecting a similar argument that a statutory anomaly made "not a whit of sense," we explained in one recent case that "Congress wrote the statute it wrote" -- meaning, a statute going so far and no further. . .

This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress "must have intended" something broader. -- Justice Elena Kagen in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community


John Jordan wonders if she will feel the same hearing King v. Burwell.

Quote of the Day Posted by John Kranz at November 14, 2014 3:55 PM

Snap. A very large tea leaf there.

But it raises a question under my tinfoil cranial adornment: If the CEO of a minor winery can find this morsel in a SCOTUS opinion so soon after King v. Burwell was granted certiorari, why could none of the GOP king's men find the Gruber (not MacGruder) tapes before the election?

Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2014 4:18 PM

(Magruder.)

Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2014 4:19 PM | What do you think? [2]