Yeah, but ... it doesn't even rely on the legislative history and in fact suggests the statutory text overrides the history, which I suppose is why Scalia didn't write separately, but still, what a snide man he is.
My best guess is that he just objected to the Court discussing statutory history at all. One wonders if he requested that it be put in a separate section so he could not join in that part.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-04 11:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-04 12:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-04 12:50 pm (UTC)Scalia never misses a chance to make a point.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-04 01:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-04 03:24 pm (UTC)My best guess is that he just objected to the Court discussing statutory history at all. One wonders if he requested that it be put in a separate section so he could not join in that part.