« Legislative Factoid of the Day | Main | Morning Smoke: Salazar: Overhaul of Offshore Regulation Due October 1 »

Jan 19, 2011


Scott Amey

There’s also this question/statement by Chief Justice Roberts, which is along the line of the argument made in our brief:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, your central argument is that because "person" is defined to include corporation, "personal" in the same statute must include corporate.

I tried to sit down and come up with other examples where the adjective was very different from the root noun. It turns out it is not hard at all. You have craft and crafty. Totally different. Crafty doesn't have much to do with craft. Squirrel, squirrely. Right? I mean, pastor -- you have a pastor and pastoral. Same root, totally different.

So I don't understand -- I don't think there's much to the argument that because "person" means one thing, "personal" has to be the same relation. [p. 35]

Ron Benenati

Call me naive, I would think Corporate, ie publically owned companies, would have a greater requirement for disclosure and transparency as a responsibility to their current and potential share holders.

The comments to this entry are closed.