In my inbox this morning was a great blog post by Kendall Gray, writing about the Supreme Court's decision this week in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro. He pointed out two wonderful examples of issue framing by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, and Justice Ginsberg, writing for the dissent.

See the magic for yourself, after the jump.

Nicastro concerned "stream of commerce" jurisdiction under Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court. Depending on whether you are Justice Kennedy or Justice Ginsberg, either "the plaintiff seriously injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine" manufactured by the defendant (Kennedy), or the defendant's "three-ton metal shearing machine severed four fingers on Robert Nicastro’s right hand" (Ginsberg). Nicastro, understandably piqued, sued J. McIntyre Machinery in New Jersey. One problem: J. McIntyre is an English company that sells its products through a U.S. distributor, raising the question of whether it had sufficient minimum contacts to be subject to suit in New Jersey.