1. If the language is clear, should courts ever consider legislative history to confirm or refute the plain meaning of a statute? Explain why or why not.
2. The Seventh Circuit has held that when a statute is unambiguous, the court does not need to ever consider legislative history. The Ninth Circuit has concluded that although the plain meaning is a starting point for statutory construction, the court should consider the entire law, including its object and policy, and should consider legislative history even when the plain language is unambiguous if the legislative history clearly indicates that Congress meant something other than what it said.
3. Which case controls? Which approach do you think is better and why? Is there a different approach you think the courts should consider?