PSW Next week: MONDAY at 6:30, Abbe Gluck

[Anjali Motgi]

Hi team,

Because this piece is long and the date of our weekly meeting is changing for *next week only* I thought I'd send around the PSW reading for Week 9 a bit early. Due to that thing that's happening on Tuesday, we'll be holding PSW on MONDAY, November 5, at 6:30 pm in Room 128 -- a different time and room for next week ONLY.

Attached please find Professor Abbe Gluck's forthcoming essay "Statutory Interpretation from the Inside," a two-part tome on statutory interpretation that Professor Eskridge mentioned during his workshop. We'll be focusing on the first part, which touches on many of the issues Eskridge's review of Garner/Scalia addressed. Professor Gluck's note to readers is pasted below. 

 If you are enrolled in the reading group for credit and anticipate needing to miss the workshop due to the time change, please let me know via email so that I don't mark you as "absent." Also please remember that you need to attend at least 13 of the sessions to receive reading group credit. Thanks, y'all!

Progressively yours,

Anjali

Note from Professor Gluck to PSW:

Dear YLS ACS Workshop Participants:

            Many thanks for hosting me at your workshop next week.  The paper I will be discussing is VERY long, and I do not wish to saddle you with the whole thing.  As such, I would recommend the following reading strategy, which totals about 75 pages:

-       Read the introduction

-       Skim Part I

-       Read Parts II and III—this is the critical material

-       Skip Part IV

-       Read Part V (it’s a 5 page conclusion/nice summary)

-       Skip Appendix

 

The paper is truly a work-in-progress and so any comments or suggestions are most welcome.  Stanford has accepted it for publication as two articles and so we are in the process of trying to break it into two papers.  Our tentative plan is to have the first Article be about our findings with respect to known doctrines (e.g., whether congressional drafters, for example, know and draft in light of the Chevron rule or textual canons?) and the second Article be about additional things we learned/new interventions/new rules of interpretation (e.g., the central role of Legislative Counsel, the importance of a statute’s particular legislative process, and drafters’ resistance to delegations to courts). 

The core material of the proposed first Article would the material of Parts II and III and so I would particularly welcome your views about whether you think this is “enough” for a single Article and what more we might say as a matter of theory about the findings we present.  (We do not wish for the piece to be only descriptive.)  Why is it important that Congress knows or doesn’t know the rules of interpretation?  What more can or should we say about all of this?  What additional questions does it raise that we haven’t tacked?

I look forward to meeting everyone on Monday and becoming part of the community.

Warmly,
ARG 

--
Anjali Motgi

Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2014

214.924.4731 | anjali...@gmail.com