http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/comment-page-1/#comment-16117 jane anne morris Fri, 23 May 2008 15:13:40 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/#comment-16117 Sounds like a further use of the doctrine wherein regulatory approval or permits (at federal or state level) is used as a shield against any legal relief from harm. And we wonder why people distrust "government"? Sounds like a further use of the doctrine wherein regulatory approval or permits (at federal or state level) is used as a shield against any legal relief from harm. And we wonder why people distrust “government”?

]]> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/comment-page-1/#comment-14841 Brendan Connors Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:43:01 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/#comment-14841 Mark, I think that's a rather tendentious account of Justice Scalia's views on statutory construction. While I'm sure you're simply trying to throw in a glib comment, any person who has performed even a minimal investigation on the matter would know that Scalia does not consider the legislative history (i.e. the Congressional Record) of a bill to be relevant in the judicial interpretation of a given statute for certain fundamental reasons consistent with his opinions on the role of the judiciary. He has repeatedly contended that the tendency of justices to manipulate the (often convoluted) legislative record to support their wide-ranging positions on how any given case would ultimately result is a much less legitimate (and consistent) method of interpretation than that which centers on the "plain meaning" of the text of the statute involved. While surely this is a view which is more amenable to the "originalist" school of judicial interpreation, to suggest that it is a hollow or vapid pretext for Scalia is patently unfair. Mark, I think that’s a rather tendentious account of Justice Scalia’s views on statutory construction. While I’m sure you’re simply trying to throw in a glib comment, any person who has performed even a minimal investigation on the matter would know that Scalia does not consider the legislative history (i.e. the Congressional Record) of a bill to be relevant in the judicial interpretation of a given statute for certain fundamental reasons consistent with his opinions on the role of the judiciary. He has repeatedly contended that the tendency of justices to manipulate the (often convoluted) legislative record to support their wide-ranging positions on how any given case would ultimately result is a much less legitimate (and consistent) method of interpretation than that which centers on the “plain meaning” of the text of the statute involved. While surely this is a view which is more amenable to the “originalist” school of judicial interpreation, to suggest that it is a hollow or vapid pretext for Scalia is patently unfair.

]]> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/comment-page-1/#comment-14811 Mark Arnold Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:18:44 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/#comment-14811 Matt, Scalia does not pay any attention to legislative history, just the text of the statute. He can't rewrite history if he ignores it. Matt, Scalia does not pay any attention to legislative history, just the text of the statute. He can’t rewrite history if he ignores it.

]]> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/comment-page-1/#comment-14804 Matt Monahan Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:05:18 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-the-decision-in-riegel-v-medtronic/#comment-14804 Is it fair to say that Justice Scalia's expansive reading of the "any requirement" language of MDA to include state tort claims requires him to take some degree of license with the history of the MDA? Is it fair to say that Justice Stevens' concurrence is a sign that Justice Scalia may be rewriting history in certain ways? Is it fair to say that Justice Scalia’s expansive reading of the “any requirement” language of MDA to include state tort claims requires him to take some degree of license with the history of the MDA? Is it fair to say that Justice Stevens’ concurrence is a sign that Justice Scalia may be rewriting history in certain ways?

]]>