502us2$27K 01-22-99 08:37:00 PAGES OPINPGT
Cite as: 502 U. S. 410 (1992)
433
Scalia, J., dissenting
ruptcy unaffected”—which cannot be eliminated by an ambiguous provision, at least where the “legislative history” does not mention its demise. Ante, at 417, 418. We have, of course, often consulted pre-Code behavior in the course of interpreting gaps in the express coverage of the Code, or genuinely ambiguous provisions. And we have often said in such cases that, absent a textual footing, we will not presume a departure from longstanding pre-Code practice. See, e. g., Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494, 501 (1986); Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S., at 46–47. But we have never held pre-Code practice to be determinative in the face of what we have here: contradictory statutory text. To the contrary, where “the statutory language plainly reveals Congress’ intent” to alter pre-Code regimes, Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S., at 563, we have simply enforced the new Code according to its terms, without insisting upon “at least some discussion [of the change from prior law] in the legislative history,” ante, at 419. For an illustration of just how plainly today’s opinion is at odds with our jurisprudence, one need only examine our most recent bankruptcy decision. Union Bank v. Wolas, ante, p. 151. There also the parties took “contrasting positions” as to the meaning of the statutory text, but we did not shrink from finding, on the basis of our own analysis, that no ambiguity existed. There also it was urged upon us that the interpretation we adopted would overturn pre-Code practice with “no evidence in the legislative history that Congress intended to make” such a change. Ante, at 157. We found it unnecessary to “dispute the accuracy of [that] description of the legislative history . . . in order to reject [the] conclusion” that no change had been effected. “The fact,” we said, “that Congress may not have foreseen all of the consequences of a statutory enactment is not a sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to its plain meaning.”
