Over at Truth on the Market, Jay Verret has begun an effort on open source writing, with the DC Circuit's proxy access decision as the subject. Give it a look and weigh in, if you have a view - he's correct to think that statutory interpretation of the relevant statutes isn't a particularly clarity inducing exercise; one interesting question is whether the SEC has done that clarification by regularly interpreting the statute in a particular way. Doesn't mean the agency couldn't change the interpretation - that's what Chevron was about, after all (the subject of the Chevron case was polar opposite interpretations of the same Clean Air Act term by the Carter and Reagan EPAs). But I think it can do some work where pure textualism results in the conclusion that yes, indeed, the statute is ambiguous. If you stop the analysis there, I think it would be very difficult not to simply defer to the agency.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e2014e8a7b4c28970d
Links to weblogs that reference Proxy Access, by Jay Verret:
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
