THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S GLOSSING OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS ’ TORT ACTIONS

HE policy formulation behavior of Congress and that of groups as-t sociated with legislative policy making (the White House, Execu-JL tive Branch bureaucrats, pressure groups, and federal courts [used by parties involved in public policy disputes]) varies from one policy is-sue to another; different public policies have their distinctive politics and political participants (Cleaveland 1969: 3, 6 fn 3). In this policy formu-lation activity, Congress &dquo;is organized in a way that makes it... incap-able of developing comprehensive, long-term programs&dquo; (Whalen 1986: ix). Policy formulators (or, in the absence of action by that political ac-tor, the policy implementors) must create in the legislation a &dquo;structure of generally accepted values... that help to resolve troublesome ques-tions of definition and scope&dquo; (Cleaveland 1969: 4). Due to the many different legislative interests &dquo;striving to be heard&dquo; and the ensuing con-gressional &dquo;cacophony&dquo; (Whalen 1986: 8), public policy formulated by Congress generally lacks a well-defined statement. Consequently, a read-ing of the statute does not provide the implementor with clear answers to questions of policy definition and scope that inevitably arise. When Congress is silent and when legitimate claims are made by per-sons that require clarity of policy definition and scope, how is the dilemma resolved? Sooner or later, such important public policy ques-tions will be answered by the federal judiciary. As Chief Justice John Mar-shall said, in Marbury v. Madison (1803): &dquo;It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.&dquo; One such public policy that illustrates this reality of congressional policy making is the issue of military veterans ’ legal actions for correc-tive justice under the terms of a 1946 public policy enacted by Congress. Since 1945, when atomic power was initially used for strategic military purposes, military personnel have been exposed, accidentally and inten-tionally, to atomic fallout and to some of the adverse medical impacts of this new risky technology (Perrow 1986; Morone and Woodhous