> Justice Elena Kagan tackled that very example during Monday’s oral arguments, comparing it to a hypothetical medical test:

>

> > So you’re going in for a medical test and you receive something from the hospital, and it says, to receive this test, the patient should not, and then, you know, it has a list of things that the patient shouldn’t do, and it says the patient shouldn’t eat any food, drink any liquids, *and* smoke. So I’m going to assume…that you’re not a smoker. Do you feel perfectly able to eat and drink as much as you want?

That isn't happening, though. I was curious so I looked at the last paperwork I have my hands on. It said "Do not:" and then there was a bullet point list, no conjunctions. I don't think it's ambiguous, and Kagan's argument here is disingenuous.