JUSTICE SCALIA IS INTELLECTUALLY DISINGENUOUS
| pea-brained new version | 10/12/15 | | Low-t people who are hurt | 10/12/15 | | Judgmental Snowy Gas Station Rigpig | 10/12/15 | | Razzle Chestnut Toaster | 10/12/15 | | Judgmental Snowy Gas Station Rigpig | 10/12/15 | | pontificating contagious trump supporter locus | 10/12/15 | | irradiated chapel queen of the night | 10/12/15 | | adventurous tank mood | 10/12/15 | | pea-brained new version | 02/13/16 | | Balding orange french chef national security agency | 10/12/15 | | vermilion school cafeteria | 10/12/15 | | Balding orange french chef national security agency | 10/13/15 | | lilac kitty cat chad | 10/13/15 | | pea-brained new version | 10/14/15 | | pea-brained new version | 10/13/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 12th, 2015 2:43 PM Author: pea-brained new version
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: Balding orange french chef national security agency
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) |
|
|