JUSTICE SCALIA IS INTELLECTUALLY DISINGENUOUS
| Wild trip prole | 10/12/15 | | chartreuse goal in life | 10/12/15 | | flesh stag film friendly grandma | 10/12/15 | | hideous church | 10/12/15 | | flesh stag film friendly grandma | 10/12/15 | | dashing filthy business firm giraffe | 10/12/15 | | emerald weed whacker newt | 10/12/15 | | crimson adventurous french chef | 10/12/15 | | Wild trip prole | 02/13/16 | | 180 Onyx Coldplay Fan Party Of The First Part | 10/12/15 | | autistic chrome corner travel guidebook | 10/12/15 | | 180 Onyx Coldplay Fan Party Of The First Part | 10/13/15 | | Lemon Floppy Telephone Trust Fund | 10/13/15 | | Wild trip prole | 10/14/15 | | Wild trip prole | 10/13/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 12th, 2015 2:43 PM Author: Wild trip prole
An extreme example is the way in which some United States Supreme Court Justices use the dictionary to interpret complex federal statutes. In his plurality opinion in Rapanos v United States (2006), Justice Scalia sought to determine the scope of federal regulatory power over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (1972) not by reference to the statute’s stated goal of maintaining ‘the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation’s waters’ (§1251(a)), but rather by reference to the definition of ‘waters’ found in the version of Webster’s New International Dictionary published in 1954. Instead of considering whether conditions in the relevant wetlands could affect the Great Lakes system just one mile away, the plurality opinion off ered an exegesis of such common hydrological terms as ‘streams’, ‘oceans’, ‘rivers’, ‘lakes’, ‘bodies of water’, ‘ditches’, channels’, and ‘moats’—the latter of obvious concern to a 20th-century statute seeking to prevent water pollution ( Rapanos , pp. 732–6)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3015103&forum_id=2#28952157) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2015 7:13 AM Author: 180 Onyx Coldplay Fan Party Of The First Part
Yes, but Scalia is ITALIAN. That's a special kind of unintellectual.
Italians are known for fashion, food, Ferraris, operas, and 1960s existential films -- not philosophy.
Swarthy, yes; brainy, no.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3015103&forum_id=2#28956020) |
|
|