قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / The Supreme Court distinguished by a large letter

The Supreme Court distinguished by a large letter



Judge Kavanaugh wrote in his 22-page response to the 16-page majority opinion: “Ordinary meaning and literal meaning are two different things.” “And the judge interpreting the statute should follow the ordinary meaning, not the literal meaning.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts (John G. Roberts) and Justice Samuel A. Alito (Samuel A. Alito Jr.) joined the different opinions of Justice Kavanaugh (Kavanaugh) on how to understand the article” a” holds a different point of view.

He wrote: “The term’one’ is not the same.” He admitted that “a car dealership that promises to deliver a “car” to a customer fails to fulfill its obligation if it sends a car to the customer. Separate the car parts at once. “

“In contrast, it is common to send a resume and then provide reference materials to submit a’job application’,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “When the final reference material arrives, the applicant has already submitted a “job application”. Similarly, the author can submit the chapters of the novel to the editor at a time when they are ready. After submitting the last chapter, the author undoubtedly submitted the “manuscript.” “

Justice Gorsoqi responded that the court’s job is to discover the meaning of the statute.

He said: “If we happen to refer to grammar and dictionary definitions as well as legal structure and history in the process of discerning meaning, the reason we do this is that the rules governing languages ​​usually tell ordinary people how to understand the rules governing them. “Wrote.

He added that it is fair for the government to comply with the standards imposed on ordinary people. He wrote: “If the government finds it cumbersome to fill in the form, it means it has a good company.” “The world is full of various forms, and it is rare for agents to empower individuals to complete them as the government is pursuing today. freedom of.”

Judge Gorsuch wrote: “On one level, today’s disputes seem to be semantic, focusing on only one word, and very small on that word. But how does the law limit the power of words.”


Source link