Right is probably the wrong word. Justified maybe? The law does say what the claim says it says so a literal translation is correct, justified, whatever word you want to use? I've read part of the majority opinion thus far.
Plausible? A literal translation is plausible, if you wrench the text out of context and view it in isolation, and ignore contradictory text in other places - but even hardcore textualism doesn't sanction this approach at risk of its own credibility. I'll let Scalia's (stupid) book on originalism make this point: "fair reading” [of a statute requires] “an ability to comprehend the purpose of the text, which is a vital part of its context” (of course, as Posner points out, they contradict themselves and all over the place in the book, so what good is this really?) At the end it doesn't matter - This decision is DOA at the en banc level - then we will have both the 4th Cir. and D.C. Cir. (and the D.Cts) rejecting a silly interpretation of the statute. The grounds for SCt intervention point will be very tenuous.
I admire your optimism. Even if Obama puts an end to world hunger, wars, poverty, etc, there will still be a lot of naysayers :grin:
