Union Bank v. Wolas/Concurrence Scalia
|←Union Bank v. Wolas||Union Bank v. Wolas by
Opinion of the Court
Justice SCALIA, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, including Parts II and III, which respond persuasively to legislative-history and policy arguments made by respondent. It is regrettable that we have a legal culture in which such arguments have to be addressed (and are indeed credited by a Court of Appeals), with respect to a statute utterly devoid of language that could remotely be thought to distinguish between long-term and short-term debt. Since there was here no contention of a "scrivener's error" producing an absurd result, the plain text of the statute should have made this litigation unnecessary and unmaintainable.
|This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).|