If Biden's DOJ had settled a lawsuit for loan forgiveness and that settlement had given the exact same remedy that was deemed a major questions doctrine violation ... wouldn't it be a major questions doctrine violation? If so, why is Trump's slush fund not a major questions doctrine violation?
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insuf
ficiently 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 method
ology 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 pref
erences as “textual” inevitabilities. 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 flexi
ble enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f4d76fjna5nxqsy2fu6cgmp3/bafkreicg7mx5lddzyvnoguvadwnojtm7xcu2sf34hhizuapfesk46w7kli)
