Originally Posted by
ECHO24
Hey franklin, here's some better bait. You are responsible for that FAA letter demolishing AMA's forced membership scheme. With your gov witness experience you are the natural choice to bring up FAA's "unable to comply" gambit at the FAA RID webinar, and why it does not pass muster under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.
You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).
I'll be honest, I've not read all that much on what you call the unable to comply gambit, so I then can't comment about whether it passes muster with rules of construction and interpretation. What I can so though is that at least until SCOTUS over-rules Chevron, federal agencies are given pretty wide latitude. Yes, SCOTUS is chipping away at it with some recent decisions, but big parts of Chevron are still in place.