Court Opinion

ID: 9875902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:44:14.661033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:06.197344
License: Public Domain

BERGER, J.,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that the plain language of section 95.11(5)(h) does not support the borrower’s argument. I write separately to note that, in my view, legislative history is useless as a tool for deriving legislative intent, even in the face of an ambiguous statute. Indeed, “it is utterly impossible to discern what'the Members of [the Legislature] intended except to the extent that intent is manifested in the only remnant of ’history' that bears the unanimous endorsement of the majority in each House: the text of the enrolled bill that became law.” Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 559 U.S. 280, 302, 130 S.Ct. 1396, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring).