Rutherford v. United States · ¶95

The majority tries to downplay Congress's treatment of rehabilitation by analogizing to a conversation with a dietitian. Ante, at 468–469. An instruction from a dietitian not to eat pasta alone, the majority says, is not a “license” to eat unhealthy food, so Congress's express limit on rehabilitation, the majority reasons, “did not impliedly bless all other considerations” either. Ante, at 469. This analogy misses the mark. Unlike a judge who enters a sentence-modification proceeding assuming she may consult all relevant information not expressly excluded by law, see Kimbrough, 552 U. S., at 103, one does not go into a conversation with a dietitian under the assumption that all foods not expressly prohibited are on the table. Those concerned enough about their diets to seek professional help likely do not need to be expressly told that they should avoid “[f]ried chicken.” Ibid.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.