3 ms·

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind textualism? Isn't it obvious that language is imprecise and context matters? I just don't get it. I also don't und

by V__ 3y ago

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind textualism? Isn't it obvious that language is imprecise and context matters? I just don't get it. I also don't understand why laws don't come with comments to better define the intended context.

sidewndr46 3y ago
If the objective is to re-interpret long established laws to be mean something else, focusing on the grammatical details is as good of a justification as anything.
ecshafer 3y ago
The law is a written thing. What is written down is the law, is an important concept for a nation of laws. If you are to be governed by laws it’s important that said laws are enforced and it’s not arbitrary, so therefore we aught to follow what the law says and not what we think the intention of the law maker was. If there is ambiguity then the law maker can and should change the law. If there is a law that fines you for wearing a blue shirt and you get fined for wearing a red shirt, but the court says “we know the intention was red shirt” then that is arbitrary enforcement of the law, we are just at the whims of the officials in the government and not being run by the laws.
- Doxin 3y ago
  Of course in practice you want to be somewhere in-between extremes. You probably don't want to allow daft arguments about specific wording when it's pretty clear there's a correct interpretation. On the other hand you don't want guilty/not-guilty to become entirely detached from the text of law. It's tricky stuff with a lot of grey area which is why judges are important people.
oatmeal1 3y ago
Context and intent matters, but context and intent are very subjective. Justices are apt to read the context and intent that they want to interpret legislation in a way they personally think would be beneficial. If you want an example of this, see Scalia's dissent in King v. Burwell. It's very entertaining. A textualist approach can also unfortunately lead to biased decisions, but only to the extent Congress is imprecise with language. A textualist approach has the benefit of discouraging Congress from crafting bad legislation that requires judicial interpretation in the first place.
nitwit005 3y ago
> I also don't understand why laws don't come with comments to better define the intended context. Laws do often come with details about why the law was passed, and there is often the public debate on the law before hand. Members of congress have spoken against legal rulings on the basis that it went against their intent.

by V__ 3y ago

sidewndr46 3y ago

If the objective is to re-interpret long established laws to be mean something else, focusing on the grammatical details is as good of a justification as anything.

ecshafer 3y ago

The law is a written thing. What is written down is the law, is an important concept for a nation of laws. If you are to be governed by laws it’s important that said laws are enforced and it’s not arbitrary, so therefore we aught to follow what the law says and not what we think the intention of the law maker was. If there is ambiguity then the law maker can and should change the law. If there is a law that fines you for wearing a blue shirt and you get fined for wearing a red shirt, but the court says “we know the intention was red shirt” then that is arbitrary enforcement of the law, we are just at the whims of the officials in the government and not being run by the laws.

Doxin 3y ago
Of course in practice you want to be somewhere in-between extremes. You probably don't want to allow daft arguments about specific wording when it's pretty clear there's a correct interpretation. On the other hand you don't want guilty/not-guilty to become entirely detached from the text of law. It's tricky stuff with a lot of grey area which is why judges are important people.

oatmeal1 3y ago

Context and intent matters, but context and intent are very subjective. Justices are apt to read the context and intent that they want to interpret legislation in a way they personally think would be beneficial. If you want an example of this, see Scalia's dissent in King v. Burwell. It's very entertaining. A textualist approach can also unfortunately lead to biased decisions, but only to the extent Congress is imprecise with language. A textualist approach has the benefit of discouraging Congress from crafting bad legislation that requires judicial interpretation in the first place.

nitwit005 3y ago

> I also don't understand why laws don't come with comments to better define the intended context. Laws do often come with details about why the law was passed, and there is often the public debate on the law before hand. Members of congress have spoken against legal rulings on the basis that it went against their intent.