Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U.S. 151, 13 (1991)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13

Cite as: 502 U. S. 151 (1991)

Scalia, J., concurring

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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.

163

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13

Last modified: October 4, 2007