The author of this New York Times story misses the point, perhaps because he's partisan. Chief Justice John Roberts resorts to dictionaries in order to discipline Congress. He is telling members of Congress to use plain English, for that is how he will interpret their words. The reporter makes it sound as though Roberts is lazy or stupid for resorting to dictionaries.
Addendum: Justice Stephen Breyer is quoted as saying that you can't tell what Congress intended by consulting a dictionary. Really? The background assumption in most contexts, including legal contexts, is that people mean (i.e., intend) what they say—in other words, that people are speaking literally. What one says is a function of what one's words mean, and what words mean is given by a dictionary. I should point out that my Ph.D. dissertation is on constitutional interpretation. Chapter 5 is entitled "A Theory of Expression Meaning."
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 