|
Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
The proper use of legislative history is a subject of current dispute.
Different judges take different stances. There is a wikipedia article on the
subject, currently carrying the warning "The neutrality of this section is
disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
(December 2012)"
Justice Breyer surely drafted his opinion to get as many votes as possible. I
do not know how he and the other the current justices individually feel about
citing legislative history. He may have felt that legislative history was
important, or that he had to cite it to get the votes of those who felt that
citing this legislative history was important. If so, he would have put in the
phrase you question to placate those who disapprove of reliance on legislative
history and get them to join his opinion.
Either way, it was a relatively non-controversial way to proceed in crafting a
majority opinion that would garner as much support as possible. I am sure that
justices on both sides of the legislative history issue would understand.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|