Except in this instance, the conservative justices completely abandoned their "textualism" argument given the law in question was written by Congress to do precisely what they disallowed. And no, I don't want to hear that "well clearly not since they ruled against it."

To be clear: I'm talking about their redefinition of the word "adjacent". Forgive me if I'm not following the thread correctly here. Justice Alito seems to think adjacent means "navigable waters" instead of "these waters are literally connected to each other even if not above ground".