Discussion about this post

User's avatar
malsperanza's avatar

Drinking now.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Everything is terrible.

But I <em>did</em> get a good belly-laugh from the start of Scalia's dissent in <em>Adoptive Parents vs. Baby Girl</em> (not quite sure what to make of that case name):

<blockquote>I join JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent except as to one detail. I reject the conclusion that the Court draws from the words “continued custody” in 25 U. S. C §1912(f) not because “literalness may strangle meaning,” see post, at 11, but because there is no reason that “continued” must refer to custody in the past rather than custody in the future.</blockquote>

At first I missed that "not" which made it particularly hilarious, but then we look at how Scalia interprets the word "continued" to not mean continued in any sense. Sure, you can "continue" from present to future, but at the time the determination was made to grant custody of "Baby Girl" to "Biological Father", there was no present custody to "continue" into the future. In other words, while Scalia rejects that "literalness may strangle meaning", he has decided to reject literalness apparently because he feels it may strangle meaning. <em>This one time</em>, of course, and not where such an approach might lead down a path which doesn't reach his preferred conclusion.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?