text: in all those states,arsons of every description whether of one own or another property would fall outside the crime of violence provision.see tr.of oral arg,solicitor general noting that the categorical approach to comparing federal and state crimes produces that effect.and contrary to the dissent suggestion,post,at,that would be true of the most dangerous arsons,as well as of less serious ones.the dissent similarly fails to take into account the categorical approach rigorous requirements when discussing a couple of the offenses discussed above.still others,the dissent wholly ignores.it speculates that if the exact right state charge is filed,some of that conduct may qualify,through the provision or some other route,as an aggravated felony.ibid.may is very much the operative word there,because depending on the elements of the state offense chosen that conduct also may not.and the dissent never explains why congress would have left the deportation of dangerous felons to such prosecutorial happenstance.