This page needs to be proofread.
502us2$27K 01-22-99 08:37:00 PAGES OPINPGT
436
DEWSNUP v. TIMM Scalia, J., dissenting
alone, for example, unfortunate future litigants will have to pay the price for our expressed neutrality “as to whether the words ‘allowed secured claim’ have different meaning in other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” Ante, at 417, n. 3. Having taken this case to resolve uncertainty regarding one provision, we end by spawning confusion regarding scores of others. I respectfully dissent.
