A visiting Supreme Court Justice and Bruce Ackerman argued briefly about how deeply originalism runs as a judicial tradition in America. In response to a challenge to name one non-originalist opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes:

Ackerman: Missouri v. Holland!

Justice: I never liked Holmes anyway.

No, says a MA state court. Look at the story here. In short, the issue arose through a lease agreement protecting an industrial/artisanal bakery from other sandwich shops opening nearby. When a burrito place showed up, chaos ensued.

I really need to read the ruling (if someone can provide in comments, I'd appreciate) but what's quoted in the story sounds very odd. I don't think it's clear at all that a burrito isn't a sandwich in plain english. And it's certainly not as obvious as the quotations therein make out. "A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," said the judge. But what if instead of calling it a burrito, the burrito place had had the misfortune of being the "California Snooty Wrap and Smoothie with extraneous Ineffective Vitamin Village", and had stuffed spinach tortillas with cold fillings? Is it the fact that the burrito restaurant has a spanish sounding name that makes it a non-sandwich?

Anyway, the case seems rightly decided, but not for the reasons above, but simply because as a super-sophisticated party, the bakery surely could have negotiated a provision that captured burritos if they wanted - say, "'sandwich' means any food, hot or cold, within two or any number of slices of bread, or other edible wrapping or receptacle, leavened or unleavened (including but not limited to burritos, wraps, etc), (the "Bread') filled or burdened with any other Food which is hot or cold, and meant to be eaten by hand, such language not to exclude the incidental use of utensils (including but not limited to for use to Eat filling, hot or cold, which have made, or might reasonably be expected to make, egress from the Bread.)

But they don't seem to have done that, which is what I think the court must have been getting at. But I'd love to see the opinion.

Long live Crescat.