And there is one of our differences. I dislike intellectual dishonesty. Even if a different part of the case supported your position (it doesn't) I would be disgusted. What I can't respect is omitting part of the quote to change the meaning, then trying to weasel out of it by claiming that it doesn't matter because other parts of the case supported what you (falsely) had the quote say.
Professor..you come to this site proclaiming we are wrong and you are correct.
Professor sometime lurker screamed over the roof tops of the world this document was a Supreme Court decision.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
MONICA CASTRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND
OF R. M. G., PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
Professor we doubt you can recognize the difference between Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
Then stop practicing it. You've been shown nine ways to Sunday that your belief on the "neither...nor" phrase is wrong. I've just given you yet another detailed schooling on it. If you disagree, then you need to give a specific reason why based on actual logic and not baseless attempts to smear.