Epstein Secrets

as importantly, what it didn't write"); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretatio

ny field of statutory interpretation, it is our duty to respect not only what Congress wrote but, as importantly, what it didn't write"); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 182 (2012) ("The familiar `easy-to-say-so-if-that-is-what-was-meant' rule of statuto

Office, ATLANTA, GA, for Mandamus Respondent. Allyson Newton Ho, Bradley George Hubbard, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, DALLAS, TX, for Amici Curiae DIANE FEINSTEIN, ORRIN HATCH and JON KYL. WESTLAW @ 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 EFTA00074601 In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (

REv. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Conc. REc. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein), see also Ky] et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. 2 Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

acts, “they would have taken steps to object” to the plea agreement, and that they believed criminal prosecution to be “extremely important”). 4 See ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING Law: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 56 (2012). °° 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights), id. § 3771(c)

Rev. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Cong. Rec. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein); see also Kyl et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. ~ Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

protected rights under the Act even before charges are filed. [*73] C. COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT CRIME VICTIMS HAVE CVRA RIGHTS BEFORE CHARGING 4 See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 56 (2012). % 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights); id. § 3771(c)(

dopted amendments to their own state constitutions, | which protect a wide range of victims’ rights. ® Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotations omitted). See generally Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure 638

y address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. 47 Senator Dianne Feinstein, another primary sponsor of the bill, remarked that Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill was "[her] understanding as well." +43 In addition to th