Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 802

529US3

Unit: $U56

[09-28-01 09:22:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 694 (2000)

727

Scalia, J., dissenting

*

*

*

This is not an important case, since it deals with the inter-
pretation of a statute that has been amended to eliminate,
for the future, the issue we today resolve. But an institu-
tion that is careless in small things is more likely to be care-
less in large ones; and an institution that is willful in small
things is almost certain to be willful in large ones. The fact
that nothing but the Court’s views of policy and “congres-
sional purpose” supports today’s judgment is a matter of
great concern, if only because of what it tells district and
circuit judges. The overwhelming majority of the Courts of
Appeals—9 out of 11—notwithstanding what they might
have viewed as the more desirable policy arrangement,
reached the result unambiguously demanded by the statu-
tory text. See ante, at 698, n. 2. Today’s decision invites
them to return to headier days of not-too-yore, when laws
meant what judges knew they ought to mean.

I dissent.