I accept that judges sometimes need to refer to dictionaries, but wonder whether this particular essay is someehow related to Scalia's positions on orginalism?

Also, why are the "fowls raised for meat" definitions that they use as an example more explanatory than the "domesticated fowls" definitions?

Is it possible that the authors are confusing greater specificity for being fuller or more explanatory or superior? Given the prevailing dogma that English language dictionaries merely describe popular use rather than prescribe it, it is unclear that the more specific definitions more accurately describe its use by fluent language users.