33 Pardo & Lacey, supra note 20, at 510.

33 Pardo & Lacey, <em>supra</em> note 20, at 510.

36 See generally quick of Amici Curiae nationwide Consumer Law Center And nationwide Association Of customer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Education, No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).

37 Joseph A. Grundfest & A.C. Pritchard, Statutes With Several Personality Disorders: The Worthiness Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 627, 628 (2002).

38 Consumer Product protection Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (“We start out with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the point that is starting interpreting a statute could be the language regarding the statute it self. Missing a demonstrably expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be considered conclusive. ”); Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (“In interpreting a statute a court must always seek out one canon that is cardinal others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute just just exactly what it indicates and means in a statute just exactly exactly what there. ” is said by it).

39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the text of the statute are unambiguous, then, this very very first canon can be the final: ‘judicial inquiry is complete. ’”).

40 In re Geneva metal Co., 281 F. 3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2002).

41 Grundfest & Pritchard, supra note 37, at 642.

42 Larry Eig, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and current styles, Congressional Research provider, at 4 (2011); see also United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (speaking about just just how courts additionally may turn to the wider human anatomy of legislation into that your enactment fits).

43 United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988).