Cluster 587390

See, e.g., Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992) (“courts should disfavor interpretations of statutes that render language superfluous”); United States v. Louwsma, 970 F.2d 797, 799 (11th Cir. 1992) (“a precisely drawn statute dealing with a specific subject controls over a statute covering a more generalized spectrum”). 20 The Café district court also hesitated to uphold an ordinance containing such internal inconsistencies, stating that “the Code . . …

See, e.g., Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 , 112 S.Ct. 1146 , 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) ("courts should disfavor interpretations of statutes that render language superfluous"); United States v. Louwsma, 970 F.2d 797, 799 (11th Cir.1992) ("a precisely drawn statute dealing with a specific subject controls over a statute covering a more generalized spectrum"). 45 Second, the County's interpretation, which would allow purely political messages to be displayed …

As this Court has previously observed, “[i]t was apparently understood that the districts mentioned in the amendment would be defined by Congress in the Judiciary Act, which was pending while the amendments were being debated.” *1080 United States v. Louwsma, 970 F.2d 797, 801 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1383 , 122 L.Ed.2d 759 (1993).

See, e.g., United States v. Louwsma, 970 F.2d 797, 799 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting general canon of statutory construction under which more specific legislative enactment ordinarily controls over conflicting provision that is more general). 11 This conclusion is strongly supported by the purpose of the 1948 enactment of § 2255, making relief available in the district of conviction rather than the district of incarceration, which has, so far as I am aware, never been criticized …