Skip to main content

View Diary: OK, *NOW* the Platinum Coin Won't Work, Thanks to Idiots, Cowards, or Knaves (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you are talking about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Calgacus

    Chevron v Natural Resources, the 1984, a lot.

    Chevron had to do with deference to an agency's interpretation of a statue it was charged with administering, not with a court interpreting a statute in a way counter to the clear intent of Congress in enacting it. The Chevron decision said if the statute was ambiguous, the question was whether the agency's interpretation of the statute was based on a "permissible construction" of the statute.  So, the question would be whether interpreting that statute to give the Secretary unilateral authority to issue that trillion dollar coin whenever he wanted is a "permissible construction" of the statute passed by Congress.  That's not a clear-cut issue.  I tend to thing it's not  "permissible construction" of that statute if you read it as a whole.  

    And here's a list of SCOTUS cases from the last year that in some way discuss Congressional intent, or the intent of Congress:  

    United States v. Bormes
    Nat'l Federation of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius
    Arizona v. United States
    Dorsey v. United States
    Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
    Elgin v. Department of the Treasury
    Hall v. United States
    Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
    FAA v. Cooper
    Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds
    Kawashima v. Holder
    Reynolds v. United States
    Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
    CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood
    Gonzalez v. Thaler
    Coleman v. Court of Appeals

    •  Of course not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calgacus

      "a court interpreting a statute in a way counter to the clear intent of Congress in enacting it"

      That would be off-point in this circumstance.  This wouldn't even get past Chevron step 1, as the language of the statute is not ambiguous.

      I'll bet that none of those cases are on point either, are they?

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:58:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site