For all the doublespeak in politics and the law -part of the reason I called this blog Macondo Law- I never envisioned that there would come a day when I would have to wonder about what the Supreme Court meant when it said “statutory.” Now after reading the briefs from the SG as well as from the amici in Booker and Fanfan, all I can say is welcome to Apprendictionary-land.
I am afraid that Justice Scalia will write that he is perplexed that all of these judges have not bothered to look up the meaning of statutory in the dictionary, and that he certainly knew the meaning of the word when he used it. What kind of Clerks have they?!
In all frankness, I have not gone to a dictionary to look up the meaning of statutory, but will do so right after posting this. This is what we've been reduced to, rather than really talking about the right to jury trial and findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am afraid that Justice Scalia will write that he is perplexed that all of these judges have not bothered to look up the meaning of statutory in the dictionary, and that he certainly knew the meaning of the word when he used it. What kind of Clerks have they?!
In all frankness, I have not gone to a dictionary to look up the meaning of statutory, but will do so right after posting this. This is what we've been reduced to, rather than really talking about the right to jury trial and findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
