Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/594

 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.