No reason why anyone should feel like poop, Craig. Jim was challenged for saying something that isn't true. The NYT didn't admit or lie about WMDs in Iraq. No one produced evidence it did. Jim withdrew and, like Obama, is back again.

As for definitions, it's not enough to just use a dictionary, as we're instructed regularly by the "purposivists" and "textualists" in the your Supreme Court debates, or similarly by Second Amendment advocates in Misfires.

A good read on this is the book Judging Statutes by the chief judge of US Court of Appeal, Robert Katzman, who supports Chief Justice John Roberts' take on textualists.

Roberts says all legislative history is not created equal. There's a difference between the weight you give a conference report and the weight you give to a statement of one legislator on the floor i.e. Jim vs international authorities.

Last edited by King Brown; 10/17/14 10:19 AM.