Task: songer_direct2

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

MILLER, Associate Justice.
Appellant sought in the District Court an order requiring appellee, as Administrator of Veterans Affairs, to perform what she called his ministerial duty to reinstate a policy of insurance. The Court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. We conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed. The Regulation, upon which our decision turns, reads as follows: “The applicant for reinstatement of United States Government life insurance must furnish during his lifetime, and before becoming totally and permanently disabled, a written application signed by him which shall state that he is in as good health a9 at date of lapse, or that he is in good health, in accordance with the ■ requirements of • the particular case; and in addition the applicant shall furnish such evidence relative to his physical condition as may be required by the director on such forms as the director may prescribe: Provided, That if the insurance becomes a claim after tender of the amount of the premiums required but before full compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, and the applicant was in the required state of health at the date that he made the tender of the amount of prenñums, and that there is a satisfactory reason for his noncompliance, the director may, if the applicant be dead, waive any or all of the requirements of this paragraph, or if the applicant be living, allow compliance with this paragraph, as of the date the required amount of premiums was received in the bureau.” [Italics supplied] The proviso clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion by the Administrator. Appellant’s contention seems to be that the proviso means not that the Administrator may, but that he must waive the requirements. This is not a reasonable interpretation of the Regulation. Moreover, the proviso does not operate to permit waiver — under the circumstances of this case — unless, (1) the applicant is dead and (2) a satisfactory reason is given for his noncompliance. The only reason for noncompliance which appears from the complaint is that he is dead. If no more than this were required there would have been no reason for using the words “and that there is a satisfactory reason for his noncompliance.” The fact that he is dead, standing alone, far from constituting a satisfactory reason, may well indicate that he was not in the required state of health. If there had been a satisfactory reason for noncompliance, presumably it would have been made known to the Administrator and alleged in the complaint. The controlling rule is that the courts will not interfere to compel action by an executive officer unless his duty to act is clearly established and plainly defined, and the obligation to act is peremptory. No such showing was made in this case.
Affirmed.
Section 3080, Veterans’ Administration Regulations.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B