Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p... 12439511093
Gusto Embrado pseudonymbus @icenineninja.bsky.social · 20/06/2025…”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 0202
mssmithy.bsky.social @mssmithy.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Same goes for Thomas, he also loves to find rationale for the decision he wants over what the constitution really says. 0131
arrogantmonkey.bsky.social @arrogantmonkey.bsky.social · 20/06/2025I feel like if Newsom appeals to SCOTUS about federalizing the NG Jackson is gonna smack Gorsuch in the face with this pure texualism line 020
midwestister @h-lr.bsky.social · 20/06/2025⚠️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. 033
blue-n-al.bsky.social @blue-n-al.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Textualism 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. 000
Cityscraped @cityscraped.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Cannot 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. 0631
GenXguy @genxguy.bsky.social · 20/06/2025So I assume SCOTUS will use “textualism” on the case for Trump taking over National Guard??? Or will they do nuance then???? 080
Guillaume Cot 🇪🇺🇺🇦🇵🇸🇧🇪 @guillaumecot.bsky.social · 20/06/2025In what landmark case(s) was "pure textualism" defined and used? (I'm French, I don't know anything about anything - but I'm willing to learn) 000
Shelley Powers @burningbird.net · 20/06/2025She's really not holding back anymore. I love her. She's the boss. 1160
Zac Sanders @abogadozac.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She’s brilliant. I don’t see how you can argue w the analysis. So much of what the right does (activist judges!) is just projection 0161
RJJNY @rjjny.bsky.social · 21/06/2025Took their attempt at a cheap shot and eviscerated them with it. 040
Jay Lee @jayleec.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Justice 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. 044
Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 20/06/2025I 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. 000
Eileen Schuyler @eschuyler.bsky.social · 20/06/2025May 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! 000
practiceunknowing.bsky.social @practiceunknowing.bsky.social · 20/06/2025It would be fantastic if she became the voice against "pure textualism." 070
Michael Blanding @michaelblanding.bsky.social · 20/06/2025There’s a connection between this and “proof texting” from the Bible 060
FuckTheseNazis 🇪🇺 🇸🇪 🇺🇦 🇿🇦 🇬🇧 🇨🇦 🇲🇽 🏳️🌈 @antifascist-uk.bsky.social · 20/06/2025A thing of beauty 010
Ed @ward920.bsky.social · 21/06/2025We all knew Gorsuch was in the pocket of big fat cat businesses 000
Benj @splatterthought.bsky.social · 20/06/2025...ayup. bsky.app/profile/spla...Benj@splatterthought.bsky.socialBecause once the vague ink of law hits the paper, the intent of the law becomes an afterthought to "sort of maybe take into some consideration" as judges & justices navigate the circumnavigational legalese provided to them by lawyers looking for loopholes in the fog covered water of justice. 000
rbsnst.bsky.social @rbsnst.bsky.social · 20/06/2025So 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 000
Queen of all she surveys @kcgeek4vocab.bsky.social · 20/06/2025That footnote’s last sentence is 👩🍳💋perfection. 000
shirleydunk.bsky.social @shirleydunk.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Kind of like you can find anything in the Bible to support whatever it is you want to cast as "God's will". 020
willdarrell.bsky.social @willdarrell.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She did not pull any punches. This is brilliant. 000
Fine. I’ll update with a word count when I start writing again. @legalminimum.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Has Gorsuch ever read any of the words that go out under his name, one wonders. 080
Baumer @mattbirnbaum.bsky.social · 20/06/2025They don’t like each other. And they probably shouldn’t. 000
Elizabeth Potter Graham, JD @elizabethpgraham.bsky.social · 21/06/2025That is what I call conservative jurisprudence. Judge Jackson abides by the rules I learned in law school over forty years ago. 0140
Matt Steinglass @mattsteinglass.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Anyone who thinks pure textualism is not malleable has had no exposure whatsoever to the Talmud 2741
Paddy_boy @hodag1977.bsky.social · 21/06/2025She towers over the conservatives intellectually & they know it & they’re resentful as hell. 0210
DisgustedNewsGuy @disgustednewsguy.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She nails it. A brilliant, intellectually honest justice -- just what the American people need and want to see on the court. Perfect. 020
Gorilla G. Chimpanzee IV, FDT @goribbonzee.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Zing! Gorsuch, of course, can go eat a huge bag of dicks (or whatever other anatomical region you prefer). 010
Linda Kent @lindakentny.bsky.social · 21/06/2025Maj'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? 000
Roberta @rkew.bsky.social · 20/06/2025It was a textual word salad, just getting through that lengthy paragraph!? 000
Rick Johnson @stewboy.bsky.social · 21/06/2025Justice Jackson is a rock star!media.tenor.coma man is singing into a microphone with a ring on his fingerALT: a man is singing into a microphone with a ring on his finger 010
Accountabilabuddy🔻 @accountabilabuddy.bsky.social · 21/06/2025Among 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. 0293
Sarah Ford @hagfish.bsky.social · 23/06/2025I once heard the phrase “it can’t mean what it never meant” applied to interpreting the Bible in its historical context - I feel like that applies to so often to interpreting text. 010
Amylee @amybean62.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Jackson is brilliant! I especially love her writing this paragraph 0224
mherringe.bsky.social @mherringe.bsky.social · 20/06/2025One of my law professors called pure textualism the “f___k you” theory of statutory interpretation. 0120
justvisiting74.bsky.social @justvisiting74.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She's written the epitaph of SCOTUS. 020
Mabinogi62 @mabinogi62.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Pure textualism sounds an awful lot like moral absolutism. 000
Chris B @chriswb71.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Purr 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. 110
Matt @fishlawyer.bsky.social · 20/06/2025best description of Gorsuch's dissent in the frozen trucker case i have ever seen 0100
ShanteJ @415goldblooded.bsky.social · 21/06/2025She runs intellectual circles around every last one of the Trump loving anti democracy “justices” Thank you President Biden for appointing this treasure and sharing her with America 0130
biz-malarkey.bsky.social @biz-malarkey.bsky.social · 20/06/2025How does one show up at work the next day after calling out their bullshit and be like, good morning, want a donut? 4271
Not Again @vortex3.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She's right, of course. 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*. 040
Beragon @beragon.bsky.social · 20/06/2025The 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. 090
Nell Nora @nellnora.bsky.social · 20/06/2025In 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. 0261
Greg resists facism @gregwalk.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Surprised by the similarities of SC review and Bi local interpretation... 000
MatteoFights @matteofights.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Common sense says take intent into account when determining meaning. Duh. 000
tellmeitsgonnabeok.bsky.social @tellmeitsgonnabeok.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She'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. 000
kenem716.bsky.social @kenem716.bsky.social · 20/06/2025It 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. 010
Galen Tromble @gtromble.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Yes, 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. 070
Kristi Fairchild @kristifairchild.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Who is responsible for this fiasco? 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 041
Papers, Please @earlgreyparty.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Analyzing Congressional intent also would also acknowledge that Congress has a claim to Constitutional interpretation equal to that of the Court's. 010
Susan Manners @susandm.bsky.social · 21/06/2025We 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. 030
Jeff Waid @jeffwaid.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Like religion, "the law" is all about which words are allowed to matter. 020
Kristina of ⭐️⭐️ @maytagsmom.bsky.social · 20/06/2025@thelouvreof.bsky.social This should be in the collection. 0120
Joe Angers He/Him 🇵🇷🇲🇫🇵🇹 @joeangersiii.bsky.social · 20/06/2025The very polite and legalese way of saying "I see your bullshit and I'm calling it out." 22456
M B @benwatius.bsky.social · 20/06/2025She’s 100 percent right. It’s what Thomas has done in his opinions and dissents for decades now. 0191
Brian Schmidt @schmidtbrian.bsky.social · 20/06/2025I think her critique can be shrunk down to this part very effectively: 0311
Larry Jackson @ljlawyers.bsky.social · 21/06/2025I’d like to have seen her add: “When tf have you so-called textualists paid any attention to the text of the 14th and 15th Amendments?” 000
outtaflushing.bsky.social @outtaflushing.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Trump 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. 030
lotusrice.bsky.social @lotusrice.bsky.social · 20/06/2025In 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! 010
Tim Hannapel @timhannapel.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Perfectly scathing in that SCOTUS footnote sort of way. God love her! 1640
TheBaroness 🐸 @thebaroness.bsky.social · 20/06/2025media.tenor.comtwo women are sitting next to each other and one is pointing at the cameraALT: two women are sitting next to each other and one is pointing at the camera 000
StokesRJ2 @stokesrj2.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Canada'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 010
Beth Crowe @bethannc.bsky.social · 21/06/2025She’s spot on! That’s why they advanced the pure textualism theory. A means to the judicial right wing end. 010
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently 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.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreih3qdtlloz3yhggypbtwiveqdgzzfgapsnetvq7qsni7wfmyuovoi)
