|
United States v. McPherson, a case about the interpretation of a statute of limitations provision, was released yesterday.
Editor's note: Judge Maggs's disquisition regarding the "absurdity doctrine" was interesting. However, if he believes that the test is whether “‘[a] rational Congress’ could have intended that meaning," then his reliance on that doctrine in Bergdahl is indefensible. Could a rational drafter have intended to apply the UCI provision to the President? Of course.
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
8/5/2021 01:21:01 pm
I question whether we have a "rational Congress" anymore, due to various Congressional representatives in the House and Senate who react to sexual assault cases they don't like the outcome of, so they ram through legislation to "fix" the system without thinking through the first, second, and third order effects of their changes. As a result, we get cases like McPherson.
Anon
8/6/2021 02:17:18 pm
Tammi--hopefully you know that is not what is meant by "rational congress." That is not a political slogan, it is a legal test.
Lone Bear
8/5/2021 03:21:41 pm
I don’t think SCOTUS would bite. CAAF ruling was reasonable, and the issue is essentially mooted. Comments are closed.
|
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|