I was told there were highly-valued specialists in the Senate whose job it was to craft legal incantations in such a way as to render them impervious to having their intent undone (or inverted) by the judiciary.
But, even for such a wizard, it was more art than science.
…”So, really, far from being "insuffi-ciently pliable," I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable that's its primary problem-and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.”
- Justice Jackson
⚠️Send the following to your reps:
🇺🇲Dear Senator, my ask of you:
1. Object to unanimous consent in the Senate.
2. Never vote in favor of Republican legislation.
3. Blue slip every judicial nominee.
4. Vote out Schumer.
🇺🇲Use these like the superpowers they are.
Textualism supersedes all reasonable interpretation if it leads to the preferred outcome. The plain meaning of words , normal inferences of syntax, precedent, and basic tenets of logic are abandoned if they will not lead to the preferred outcomes.
A symbol of how busted the Supreme Court is is that someone on the court politely putting in a footnote what had been obvious to everyone for - 30 years - is considered a top rope power bomb
Cannot imagine the dizzying heights of frustration Justice Jackson must endure in serving with this lot, but I’m very, very glad she’s there to so eloquently & handily oppose them.
Justice Jackson is a better smarter judge, but Gorsuch can't get past the fact that he has to sit next to a black female, and dare I say, talk to her sometimes.
I think this might be her best persuasive writing (I obviously haven't read everything she's written). This is a very eloquent way of framing this debate.
May the time come when she has a male colleague (or more) who is worthy of her wisdom. Hold on, Justice Jackson! This reign of partisan hacks can't last forever!
So far this SCOTUS has done little to understand or do in depth homework on an issue……rather they prefer the textualism, it is the easy out. Understanding the issue from all sides takes time and does not always fit with preconceived notions……thank you Justice Jackson
So exactly how religious zealots treat their religious texts. I've seen this a lot in lawyers working on behalf of various levels of government. They are asked what the law says in a given situation, and respond, 'What do you want the law to say?' Then they twist it to fit.
It would be great if the Court's "conservatives" were amenable to appeals to meaning, context, justice, impartiality. As far as I can see, they are just the judicial branch of the GOP. Right wing ideologues--and corrupt AF--all the way
Maj'y ruled Letter of fed laws apply only to aspirants and employees: she became disabled WHILE working years on job, not hired AS disabled; when city change rules to cut health&ret benes to disabled, her city benes were cut, so Fed law not apply to her?
Spirit of law=equal benes for disabled.
Eh?
Among many things, I am reminded of the john roberts court straining to see the words "convicted of" where the 14th amendment plainly reads "engaged in."
Textualism was always a lie, but never more than when these liars invoke it.
The way I see it, when an approach is given a academic-sounding name - pure textualism, or original intent - it’s best to assume there’s an intent behind the terminology to manipulate outcomes to suit personal philosophy.
Purr textualism seems more like sophistry, weaseling out and interpreting words how you want. Just like ICE says they can hold people overnight in a basement of their office but it's not a "detention center" even though they detain people there.
Apparently Justices Barrett and Jackson have struck up a sort of friendship.
What kind of relationship can you have with people you vehemently disagree with, but are also among the only people in the world who know what it means to wield such awesome power and shoulder such immense responsibility?
It's laughable that text of a phrase like "unreasonable searches and seizures" somehow provides any specification at all. Ask 1,000 people what those words mean and you'll get wildly different answers.
The text alone contains *almost no information at all*.
The whole point of Textualism and other approaches concocted out of thin air is provide a pretext to disregard precedent, statutory history, congressional intent and everything else that might confound a preferred policy outcome.
In my first semester of law school, we were schooled on how important ascertaining congressional intent was. Justice Jackson is so right about what the Gorsuch and the other “textualists” are trying to do.
She's already tired of the bs and further realizes that you can't fall out of a ditch so calling them out not only preserves the historical record, but likely saves her mental health. It surely helps mine to read her.
It is clear that the majority of justices are not acting in good faith. Instead, it becomes ever clearer that the majority is acting out of a combination of cynicism, egotism and opportunism. They are a stain on our democracy.
Yes, it seems obvious that if they can get the outcome they want with a textualism argument, they will use it, and if not, they'll use a different rationale. Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of conservative judicial activism.
Yep the Court has various smart republicans working towards an end they want, justifying it with whatever they can find that fits. I'd argue that the entire court's failure to disqualify trump fit there as well. The "he was not found guilty yet," ignored that there was no appreciable doubt.
She showed us Gorsuch’s textualism is an excuse for a pre-determined outcome, like religion’s quoting the Bible to justify something horrible while the entire next chapter explains why that is a venal sin and very bad. It’s a bad excuse, she exposed the hypocrisy and America ain’t buying their crap.
Except a large enough portion either does take this garbage or really doesn’t care because they too have a pre-determined outcome they want. The decisions and pretexts of conservative judges is just part of a larger sentiment of exclusion.
We have 3 brave heroes on the Supreme Court - they have the hardest and most frustrating job in the country. But they keep going. Like those 3, we all must do everything to speak out & do the next right thing.
I will never understand folks who go on about the virtue of reading every comma, every conjunction, every part of speech carefully... And then ignore everything that is not included, deeming it irrelevant.
It's an xtreme and overly reductive interpretation that tries to obscure the true motives of that interpretation which is to allow this regime to continue its fascist takeover and for those on the right of the bench and their friends to benefit from it.
pretending they have some kind of necromantic power to extract the True Meaning from a text that goes beyond what mere legislators intend is pretty central to the argument we should permit a gaggle of unelected doddering perverts with little constitutional authority to legislate from the bench
I've said it before - black and brown women will save us or at the very least fight the fight. They always have. They're the only ones that will stand up to this Idiocracy.
Trump is the perfect example of textualism in action. If the statute says "emergency" he sends out an EO declaring an "emergency" - anything he doesn't like. If it says "war" or "invasion" he declares an allegorical "war" or "invasion". SCOTUS must "defer", no matter how ridiculous.
In the outer rings of practice, Federalists turn into attorneys using a dictionary as their main source and focusing on random words to feed good codes into a meat grinder. Plain language baby!
Canada's "living tree doctrine": The Constitution is a dynamic document, capable of evolving & adapting to changing social contexts while remaining true to its original intent. It's not interpreted as a static text frozen in time, but as a living organism grows & adapts to modern realities
Americans can end this tyranny tonight! You're free people in a free country.
The actions of free men speak louder than the words of slaves.
"Against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Revolution is the solution.
Rise up, fight back, and overthrow them all.
It is your Right & Responsibility.
Comments
But, even for such a wizard, it was more art than science.
- Justice Jackson
🇺🇲Dear Senator, my ask of you:
1. Object to unanimous consent in the Senate.
2. Never vote in favor of Republican legislation.
3. Blue slip every judicial nominee.
4. Vote out Schumer.
🇺🇲Use these like the superpowers they are.
I love her. She's the boss.
https://bsky.app/profile/splatterthought.bsky.social/post/3lltnatger22u
Spirit of law=equal benes for disabled.
Eh?
Textualism was always a lie, but never more than when these liars invoke it.
Thank you President Biden for appointing this treasure and sharing her with America
What kind of relationship can you have with people you vehemently disagree with, but are also among the only people in the world who know what it means to wield such awesome power and shoulder such immense responsibility?
It's laughable that text of a phrase like "unreasonable searches and seizures" somehow provides any specification at all. Ask 1,000 people what those words mean and you'll get wildly different answers.
The text alone contains *almost no information at all*.
Answer: SCOTUS.
They granted DJT a crown 👑, gave him unlimited powers, guaranteed him no prosecution, continues to grant more power.
He’s a PSYCHOPATH
They don’t care-as long as they continue to remake the USA into THEIR vision of this WHITE nation. #Corrupt
The actions of free men speak louder than the words of slaves.
"Against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Revolution is the solution.
Rise up, fight back, and overthrow them all.
It is your Right & Responsibility.