The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
"Gorsuch is a partisan hack" (Jackson)
| queensbridge benzo | 07/14/25 |
| Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e | 07/14/25 |
| '''''"'"''"' | 07/14/25 |
| queensbridge benzo | 07/14/25 |
| Long Red Poon Tie Covering Your Wang | 07/14/25 |
| Emperor CRISPR Chad von Neumann III | 07/14/25 |
| ;::;:;;::;;;;;:::: | 07/14/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 14th, 2025 3:23 AM Author: queensbridge benzo 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: Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (You = Privy to The Great Becumming™ = Welcum to The Goodie Room™) 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: '''''"'"''"' Jackson is an absolute retard
lol @ citing her |
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:07 PM Author: queensbridge benzo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2Reputation#49101034) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:30 PM Author: Emperor CRISPR Chad von Neumann III “Takes one to know one.” Gorsuch, concurring (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2Reputation#49101119) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2025 5:31 PM Author: ;::;:;;::;;;;;:::: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5750162&forum_id=2Reputation#49101124) |