FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶35

Notably, the dissent does not use the Committee Reports to clarify the meaning of Section 47(b). For instance, the dissent does not consult the Committee Reports to see how their authors used the words on which this case turns: “rescission at the instance of any party.” Nor does it try to identify the circumstances that prompted Congress to retool Section 47(b). Instead, the dissent uses the Reports on a mission impossible: divining how Congress would have wanted courts to resolve the question presented in this case. Its theory depends on the fictional premise that hundreds of legislators (not to mention the President) shared a unified private view of how the statute should apply in a contested circumstance. See F. Easterbrook, Statutes’ Domains, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 533, 547−548 (1983); K. Shepsle, Congress Is a “They,” Not an “It”: Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 Int’l Rev. L. &…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.