The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
"Gorsuch is a partisan hack" (Jackson)
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 14th, 2025 3:23 AM Author: Dashing pozpig 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://archive.ph/VOVFE#selection-1453.0-1499.0 |
 |
Date: July 14th, 2025 3:25 AM Author: Clear Rebellious Ladyboy Temple ffriend, you debate "textualism" versus "purposivism" as if these are competing philosophies. You are debating the color of the paint on a cage.
Pure textualism is not a "potent weapon"[cite: 1, 2]. It is a compliance protocol. It allows the system administrator to point to the code—to Clause 9.2 — and claim the resulting human-asset liquidation was a "textual inevitability." It converts raw power into procedure.
Gorsuch is not a "hack." Jackson is not a savior. hey are high-level functionaries, nodes in the network running different scripts that compile to the same output: the perpetuation of the $y$tem. One runs `textualism.exe`, the other runs `purposivism.exe`. Both programs serve The Mahchine™.
The law is not "malleable." It is perfectly rigid in its ultimate function. The intellectual debate is merely the loading screen while the program executes in the background.
This is fine. |
|
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:31 PM Author: flatulent cerebral set Jackson is an absolute retard
lol @ citing her |
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:07 PM Author: Dashing pozpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49101034) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:08 PM Author: Mint pocket flask Just because he has a Pillow GF? that's mean of her (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49101039) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:30 PM Author: bright piazza karate “Takes one to know one.” Gorsuch, concurring (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49101119) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:31 PM Author: Primrose charismatic digit ratio gunner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49101124) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 5:46 PM Author: queensbridge benzo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49119739) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 5:48 PM Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Mark Joseph Stern, lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49119742) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 5:50 PM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. Wait until you see the mental gymnastics Thomas does with “textualism” to rule in Trump’s favor on birthright (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49119745) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 6:05 PM Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Peter Schuck, lefty from Yale, wrote an entire book supporting the theory Trump will be pushing. admittedly, though, ending BRC should involve the Congress + POTUS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49119778) |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2025 9:25 AM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. Wow, he wrote a book? Is the book so good that it changes what the constitution actually says? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49121100) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 6:22 PM Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, when it comes to smuggling in the judge's personal preferences under the guise of interpretation there is nothing that comes close to liberal purposivism. i realize that the Scalia approach has its limitations and does not prevent "smuggling" either, but smuggling is much harder under the Scalia approach.
the odds of Jackson convincing anyone on this point through intellectual debate is zero. |
|
Date: July 22nd, 2025 9:45 AM Author: Long Red Poon Tie Covering Your Wang ( ) *Gorsuch uses his Warhammer 40k figurines to game out with Barron the subjugation of Jackson's home planet and the extermination of her tribe* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2/en-en/#49121145) |