JUSTICE SCALIA IS INTELLECTUALLY DISINGENUOUS
| Fragrant Milky Native Main People | 10/12/15 | | Contagious avocado jewess personal credit line | 10/12/15 | | Razzle water buffalo background story | 10/12/15 | | racy hyperactive home | 10/12/15 | | Razzle water buffalo background story | 10/12/15 | | 180 honey-headed casino | 10/12/15 | | Titillating flesh rigor | 10/12/15 | | Haunting wrinkle sanctuary | 10/12/15 | | Fragrant Milky Native Main People | 02/13/16 | | Mentally impaired razzle-dazzle state | 10/12/15 | | nubile resort | 10/12/15 | | Mentally impaired razzle-dazzle state | 10/13/15 | | Cerebral Erotic Digit Ratio | 10/13/15 | | Fragrant Milky Native Main People | 10/14/15 | | Fragrant Milky Native Main People | 10/13/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 12th, 2015 2:43 PM Author: Fragrant Milky Native Main People
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: Mentally impaired razzle-dazzle state
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) |
|
|