Court Opinion

ID: 9459796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:32:03.377012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:20.587990
License: Public Domain

TAMM, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
My inability to concur in the majority opinion is based upon my conclusion that my brethren set forth an excuse rather than a reason for their reversal of the district court. The governing statute, 38 U.S.C. § 802(d)(5) (1952 edition), is exact, precise and final in providing that any applicant for death benefits “may make such application at any time within one year after the removal of such disability.” Since appellant’s infant status terminated on May 7, 1963, he obviously was required to “make such application” no later than May 7, 1964. He did not do so and the Congress has mandated that he thereby forfeited whatever claim he had to these benefits.
With a nobility of purpose but without authority in law the majority create a solution of their own for what they obviously consider is an unfortunate situation. Despite my admiration for the suppleness of adaptation which makes their end result possible, I feel it is reached only by ignoring the validity of legal principles. Recognizing that as jurists we are engaged in a never-ending *1212but never accomplished quest for justice, I still believe our mandate is to effectuate the will of the Congress rather than to substitute our own subjective views of what constitutes that justice in a particular case. In distorting congressional purpose, or in supplanting congressional objectives with our own purposes and objectives, we are usurping a power which does not belong to us. For judges to think otherwise is not a mistake but a delusion.
The majority opinion with a jaunty confidence utilizes a Janus faced “generous attitude toward eligible beneficiaries” and “humane and patriotic purposes” in reaching a point at which it is impossible to arrive by the statutory provisions. Apparently this route is pursued in the vain hope that somehow the result is within the perimeter of Chief Justice John Marshall’s “it must be on the general spirit and object of the law, not on [its] letter.” Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. (6 Peters) 217, 240, 8 L.Ed. 376 (1832).
Again acknowledging the charitable motivation of the majority, I must conclude that the result is completely indifferent to the governing law. I would affirm.