You seem to imply that the court ruled incorrectly in the Ransom v. case. I skimmed through it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,_N.A

You seem to imply that the court ruled incorrectly in the Ransom v. case. I skimmed through it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,_N.A. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,...) and while I most certainly am not a legal scholar, it seems fairly straightforward? No, it doesn't cost $28k to own a car you already own outright for five years (operating expenses are claimed separately and not controversial here) and you don't get to protect that money in a bankruptcy. What am I not seeing? (To be fair, and to underscore the degree to which I am not a legal scholar, I don't understand the substance of Scalia's dissent.)