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

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.