<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Badgerow v. Walters	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/04/01/case-of-the-day-badgerow-v-walters/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/04/01/case-of-the-day-badgerow-v-walters/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:05:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: kotodama		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/04/01/case-of-the-day-badgerow-v-walters/#comment-3632</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kotodama]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2022 18:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=30823#comment-3632</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m glad you posted on this because I was going to peruse it a little but now you saved me the trouble.  Like you, I think Breyer&#039;s approach has a lot more to commend it than myopically focusing on what seems to be a fairly slender reed of a textual hook.
His parting citation to Abramski v. United States—without a parenthetical for the opinion author—was quite a deep cut too, considering (1) Kagan wrote it and (2) it was decided in favor of instead of against a &quot;look through&quot; approach.  And of course he included an appendix which is a Breyer AF move.
Finally, I&#039;m not totally convinced the case followed straightforwardly from earlier precedent.  If that were really true, then why the need to grant cert and have a full-blown merits decision in the first place?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad you posted on this because I was going to peruse it a little but now you saved me the trouble.  Like you, I think Breyer&#8217;s approach has a lot more to commend it than myopically focusing on what seems to be a fairly slender reed of a textual hook.<br />
His parting citation to Abramski v. United States—without a parenthetical for the opinion author—was quite a deep cut too, considering (1) Kagan wrote it and (2) it was decided in favor of instead of against a &#8220;look through&#8221; approach.  And of course he included an appendix which is a Breyer AF move.<br />
Finally, I&#8217;m not totally convinced the case followed straightforwardly from earlier precedent.  If that were really true, then why the need to grant cert and have a full-blown merits decision in the first place?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
