T1B

88 wrote:

Law.com wrote:As one of its final acts last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Kansas v. Marsh, a case involving the constitutionality of a state death-penalty statute. The 5-4 decision exposed the deep divide that exists among the nation's intellectual elite regarding one of society's most troubling issues -- namely, whether the possessive form of a singular noun ending with the letter "s" requires an additional s after the apostrophe.

The issue reached a crescendo in Marsh primarily because of two circumstances. First, the statute in question originated from a state with a name ending in "s." Second, the majority opinion was written by a justice whose last name ends in "s." Given the confluence of these factors, it was inevitable that the justices' philosophical differences on matters of American usage would be thrust into the spotlight.

A BITTER DIVIDE

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court (and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia), concluded that the Kansas statute was not unconstitutional. In reaching this conclusion, Thomas repeatedly referred to the relevant law as Kansas' statute.

In response, Justice David Souter wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens. The dissent revealed Souter's bitter disagreement with both the substantive conclusion of the majority and the grammatical philosophy of the opinion's author. Whereas Thomas apparently believes that whenever a singular noun ends in "s," an additional "s" should never be placed after the apostrophe, Souter has made equally clear his conviction that an s should always be added after the apostrophe when forming a singular possessive, regardless of whether the nonpossessive form already ends in "s." With this acrimonious undercurrent simmering in the background, Souter boldly began his Marsh dissent as follows: "Kansas's capital sentencing statute provides ... " This dramatic and gratuitous use of the possessive was an obvious attack on Thomas, who, as one of three s-ending members of the Court, is viewed as a role model for the millions of children who grow up with the stigma of grammatical ambiguity attached to their names.

Cuda wrote:

88 wrote:

Law.com wrote:As one of its final acts last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Kansas v. Marsh, a case involving the constitutionality of a state death-penalty statute. The 5-4 decision exposed the deep divide that exists among the nation's intellectual elite regarding one of society's most troubling issues -- namely, whether the possessive form of a singular noun ending with the letter "s" requires an additional s after the apostrophe.

The issue reached a crescendo in Marsh primarily because of two circumstances. First, the statute in question originated from a state with a name ending in "s." Second, the majority opinion was written by a justice whose last name ends in "s." Given the confluence of these factors, it was inevitable that the justices' philosophical differences on matters of American usage would be thrust into the spotlight.

A BITTER DIVIDE

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court (and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia), concluded that the Kansas statute was not unconstitutional. In reaching this conclusion, Thomas repeatedly referred to the relevant law as Kansas' statute.

In response, Justice David Souter wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens. The dissent revealed Souter's bitter disagreement with both the substantive conclusion of the majority and the grammatical philosophy of the opinion's author. Whereas Thomas apparently believes that whenever a singular noun ends in "s," an additional "s" should never be placed after the apostrophe, Souter has made equally clear his conviction that an s should always be added after the apostrophe when forming a singular possessive, regardless of whether the nonpossessive form already ends in "s." With this acrimonious undercurrent simmering in the background, Souter boldly began his Marsh dissent as follows: "Kansas's capital sentencing statute provides ... " This dramatic and gratuitous use of the possessive was an obvious attack on Thomas, who, as one of three s-ending members of the Court, is viewed as a role model for the millions of children who grow up with the stigma of grammatical ambiguity attached to their names.

The Darkie was right.

The Lefties, were, as usualm, clueless dumbfucks.

Law.com wrote:In addition to the opinions by Thomas, Souter, and Scalia, the Marsh case generated an additional dissent by Stevens, who disagreed with the substance of the majority but declined to address the "s" issue. A review of recent opinions, however, reveals that Stevens and the remaining five justices side squarely with Thomas.

Barron's 1001 Pitfalls in English Grammar, 3rd Edition (1986), pg. 15 wrote:The possessive case of nouns, meaning belonging to, is usually formed by adding the apostrophe and s to words which do not end with an s or z sound and by adding only the apostrophe to words which end with an s or z sound. PITFALL: In singular one-syllable nouns ending in the s or z sound, it is customary to add the apostrophe and s and to pronounce the possessive as if it ended in es: the boss's hat.

Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition (1985), pg. 466 wrote:It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill, Venus' Bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, and in poetic or reverential contexts, this custom is retained, and the number of syllables is the same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four syllables, Jesus' has two, not three. But elsewhere we now usually add the s and the syllable - always when the word is monosyllabic, and preferably when it is longer, Charles's Wain, St. James's Street, Jones's children, the Rev. Septimus's surplice, Pythagoras's doctrines. Plurals of proper names ending [in] s form their possessives in the same way as ordinary plurals (the Joneses' home, the Rogerses' property).

The best practice, advocated by Strunk and White in The Elements of Style and every other authority of superior standing, is to add -'s to all singular possessives, hence witness's, Vitex's, Jones's, Congress's, testatrix's. ... Legal stylists generally follow the rule just stated ... There are two exceptions to this rule. The first is that biblical and classical names ending in -s take only an apostrophe, hence Jesus' suffering, Moses' discovery, Aristophanes' plays, Grotius' writings... The second exception is for singular terms formed from a plural. Thus Scribes, the name of the organization devoted to improving legal writing, makes Scribes' as a possessive (Scribes' president).

Smackie Chan wrote:

The best practice, advocated by Strunk and White in The Elements of Style and every other authority of superior standing, is to add -'s to all singular possessives, hence witness's, Vitex's, Jones's, Congress's, testatrix's. ... Legal stylists generally follow the rule just stated ... There are two exceptions to this rule.

I'm gonna side with Garner

the verdict of Cuda being a clueless dumbfuck is upheld