Les élèves blessés sont déclarés de façon péremptoire comme des utilisateurs décérébrés de mortiers d’artifice. Par contre, l'implication de la police est traitée avec beaucoup plus de circonspection et considérée secondaire dans le nombre de blessés.
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insuf-
ficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A method-
ology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own pref-
erences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insuffi-
ciently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s
its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexi-
ble enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7vehxvylqoilpcgckrsdgfl5/bafkreib5fqu2t3opq4igmla24ec3h3g5llfvrf657l3j2gyqttqip5ppde)
