I read most of Scalia's dissent, and I found it interesting: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11311.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/

I read most of Scalia's dissent, and I found it interesting: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11311.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11311.pdf It starts on page 31. He gets to the amicus briefs on page 35. In this instance, the other justices did appeal to the amicus briefs to establish what constitutes a "violent" crime. (Well, Scalia claimed they did, and I admit I'm taking his word for it - I don't want to go through the other opinions, and I doubt he would misrepresent such an important point.) His claim is that the law and precedent are vague when it comes to defining a "violent crime". The prosecution, as I understand it, are making a statistical claim that crimes which tend to cause serious injury should be called "violent". They have amicus briefs with statistics on injury related to particular crimes. His point is that it is dangerous for them to rely on such statistics, as they have not been vetted. It's an interesting point, and certainly has me thinking.