<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Missing Canons of Construction in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/missing_canons_1.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/missing_canons_1.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Concurring Opinions Missing Canons of Construction in Ali v &#124; Shed Kits</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/missing_canons_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-63937</link>
		<dc:creator>Concurring Opinions Missing Canons of Construction in Ali v &#124; Shed Kits</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 04:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/missing-canons-of-construction-in-ali-v-federal-bureau-of-prisons.html#comment-63937</guid>
		<description>[...] Concurring Opinions Missing Canons of Construction in Ali v   Posted by root 23 hours ago (http://www.concurringopinions.com)        Home about rss feed contact and publicity guidelines comment policy the law the universe and everything missing canons of construction in ali v federal bureau of prisons civil forfeitures made by law enforcement officers shed light on the meaning concurri        Discuss&#160;  &#124;&#160; Bury &#124;&#160;    News &#124; concurring opinions missing canons of construction in ali v [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Concurring Opinions Missing Canons of Construction in Ali v   Posted by root 23 hours ago (<a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.concurringopinions.com</a>)        Home about rss feed contact and publicity guidelines comment policy the law the universe and everything missing canons of construction in ali v federal bureau of prisons civil forfeitures made by law enforcement officers shed light on the meaning concurri        Discuss&nbsp;  |&nbsp; Bury |&nbsp;    News | concurring opinions missing canons of construction in ali v [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike O'Shea</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/missing_canons_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-51736</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike O'Shea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/missing-canons-of-construction-in-ali-v-federal-bureau-of-prisons.html#comment-51736</guid>
		<description>Good post.  Very interesting issues, especially for those of us who eagerly seek clues about the two new Justices&#039; approaches to statutory interpretation.

My early sense is that Chief Justice Roberts is closer to the self-conscious, formal textualism of Scalia, Thomas and Easterbrook than is Justice Alito.  Check out the &lt;i&gt;Zuni&lt;/i&gt; case, last Term&#039;s big textualism smackdown, with Roberts joining Scalia, Thomas, and (bravo!) Souter in dissent.  Justice Breyer wrote a very un-textualist majority opinion -- in which Kennedy and Alito concurred with some reservations.

Here, though, Alito&#039;s qualm about the effect of the word choice &quot;&lt;i&gt;detention&lt;/i&gt;&quot; is quite consistent with textualism, and I think he was right to express some frustration that the petitioner didn&#039;t press this point below.  Notice Justice Stevens cannily swooping in to reinforce Alito&#039;s concerns at this point.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post.  Very interesting issues, especially for those of us who eagerly seek clues about the two new Justices&#8217; approaches to statutory interpretation.</p>
<p>My early sense is that Chief Justice Roberts is closer to the self-conscious, formal textualism of Scalia, Thomas and Easterbrook than is Justice Alito.  Check out the <i>Zuni</i> case, last Term&#8217;s big textualism smackdown, with Roberts joining Scalia, Thomas, and (bravo!) Souter in dissent.  Justice Breyer wrote a very un-textualist majority opinion &#8212; in which Kennedy and Alito concurred with some reservations.</p>
<p>Here, though, Alito&#8217;s qualm about the effect of the word choice &#8220;<i>detention</i>&#8221; is quite consistent with textualism, and I think he was right to express some frustration that the petitioner didn&#8217;t press this point below.  Notice Justice Stevens cannily swooping in to reinforce Alito&#8217;s concerns at this point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

