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
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
Vaudeville Vanillin @lovovmelife.bsky.social · 20/06/2025Apparently 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? 010
gretelvo.bsky.social @gretelvo.bsky.social · 20/06/2025I feel confident they already knew her position in advance of her putting it to paper. 080
E. Allyn Bloom 🇺🇳🇺🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🇺🇦 @ericallyn.bsky.social · 20/06/2025If it was me, I'd do it with a small smile. 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)
