Congress and the Court

[groovedaddy]

David Henderson was discharged from the military in 1952 after two years of duty in Korea when he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He received a disability rating of 100 percent and full benefits. Almost 50 years later, he filed a claim for added coverage of in-home care. The Department of Veterans Affairs denied it. He appealed — 15 days after the statutory 120-day period for his appeal had ended.

Now the Supreme Court has to decide whether he should have been given leeway. Clearly, that was the right thing to do. It was his illness’s terrible disorienting effects that kept him from meeting the deadline. (He died this fall, but his wife is entitled to his back benefits.)

But because of a recent Supreme Court decision interpreting the statute, a federal appeals court said the deadline was inflexible. A concurring opinion said Congress should fix the problem. That’s right, but this dysfunctional Congress is unlikely to do it anytime soon.

In this sort of case, there are competing philosophies on the Supreme Court about how justices should interpret statutes. One, framed by Justice Antonin Scalia, has in mind a Congress that doesn’t exist. The other, framed by Justice Stephen Breyer, is realistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14tue3.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a211