Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently 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 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://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreih3qdtlloz3yhggypbtwiveqdgzzfgapsnetvq7qsni7wfmyuovoi@jpeg)
Replies
…”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 flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.” - Justice Jackson
jun 20, 2025, 3:03 pm • 20 2 • view
Same goes for Thomas, he also loves to find rationale for the decision he wants over what the constitution really says.
jun 20, 2025, 3:38 pm • 13 1 • view
Damn straight.
jun 20, 2025, 4:46 pm • 0 0 • view
Damn! You tell him J J
jun 20, 2025, 8:06 pm • 0 0 • view
I feel like if Newsom appeals to SCOTUS about federalizing the NG Jackson is gonna smack Gorsuch in the face with this pure texualism line
jun 20, 2025, 3:10 pm • 2 0 • view
⚠️Send the following to your reps: 🇺🇲Dear Senator, my ask of you: 1. Object to unanimous consent in the Senate. 2. Never vote in favor of Republican legislation. 3. Blue slip every judicial nominee. 4. Vote out Schumer. 🇺🇲Use these like the superpowers they are.
jun 20, 2025, 4:54 pm • 3 3 • view
A fine dressing down!
jun 21, 2025, 1:57 am • 2 0 • view
And in these relevant paragraphs she cites Citizen United against them as well
jun 21, 2025, 5:55 am • 11 0 • view
Textualism supersedes all reasonable interpretation if it leads to the preferred outcome. The plain meaning of words , normal inferences of syntax, precedent, and basic tenets of logic are abandoned if they will not lead to the preferred outcomes.
jun 20, 2025, 5:32 pm • 0 0 • view
A symbol of how busted the Supreme Court is is that someone on the court politely putting in a footnote what had been obvious to everyone for - 30 years - is considered a top rope power bomb
jun 20, 2025, 3:37 pm • 4 0 • view
She is brilliant!
jun 21, 2025, 1:48 am • 13 0 • view
Cannot imagine the dizzying heights of frustration Justice Jackson must endure in serving with this lot, but I’m very, very glad she’s there to so eloquently & handily oppose them.
jun 20, 2025, 7:03 pm • 63 1 • view
So I assume SCOTUS will use “textualism” on the case for Trump taking over National Guard??? Or will they do nuance then????
jun 20, 2025, 3:10 pm • 8 0 • view
🎂
jun 20, 2025, 7:40 pm • 0 0 • view
In what landmark case(s) was "pure textualism" defined and used? (I'm French, I don't know anything about anything - but I'm willing to learn)
jun 20, 2025, 4:29 pm • 0 0 • view
thanks you for posting this...
jun 20, 2025, 7:58 pm • 0 0 • view
That’s solid.
jun 20, 2025, 3:29 pm • 2 0 • view
Thank Mother Nature for Justice Jackson
jun 20, 2025, 3:09 pm • 7 0 • view
She's really not holding back anymore. I love her. She's the boss.
jun 20, 2025, 3:34 pm • 16 0 • view
Hope she holds back even less going forward. Her colleagues have earned every ounce of searing insight she can muster.
jun 20, 2025, 7:53 pm • 9 0 • view
Hey is she wants to double down, I'm OK with it
jun 20, 2025, 7:54 pm • 3 0 • view
She’s brilliant. I don’t see how you can argue w the analysis. So much of what the right does (activist judges!) is just projection
jun 20, 2025, 7:22 pm • 16 1 • view
📌 law SCt
aug 7, 2025, 9:51 pm • 0 0 • view
📌
jun 20, 2025, 8:27 pm • 0 0 • view
Took their attempt at a cheap shot and eviscerated them with it.
jun 21, 2025, 4:16 am • 4 0 • view
Justice Jackson is a better smarter judge, but Gorsuch can't get past the fact that he has to sit next to a black female, and dare I say, talk to her sometimes.
jun 20, 2025, 4:32 pm • 4 4 • view
I think this might be her best persuasive writing (I obviously haven't read everything she's written). This is a very eloquent way of framing this debate.
jun 20, 2025, 8:12 pm • 0 0 • view
May the time come when she has a male colleague (or more) who is worthy of her wisdom. Hold on, Justice Jackson! This reign of partisan hacks can't last forever!
jun 20, 2025, 5:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Let’s start with the basic idea of, “no kings.”
jun 20, 2025, 4:07 pm • 3 0 • view
Bang on!!
jun 20, 2025, 4:59 pm • 0 0 • view
It would be fantastic if she became the voice against "pure textualism."
jun 20, 2025, 2:39 pm • 7 0 • view
‘Incessantly malleable.’ That’s beautiful.
jun 20, 2025, 4:39 pm • 0 0 • view
There’s a connection between this and “proof texting” from the Bible
jun 20, 2025, 3:05 pm • 6 0 • view
🔥
jun 21, 2025, 2:49 am • 0 0 • view
A thing of beauty
jun 20, 2025, 4:16 pm • 1 0 • view
Oops.
jun 20, 2025, 4:32 pm • 0 0 • view
Spoken like a true Breyer clerk!
jun 20, 2025, 3:50 pm • 2 0 • view
So we aren’t all textualists now, right?
jun 20, 2025, 3:41 pm • 2 0 • view
That last sentence is 🔥
jun 20, 2025, 3:02 pm • 21 0 • view
Yup. I kinda had to pick up my jaw from the floor after reading that last sentence. Oh my!
jun 20, 2025, 5:05 pm • 4 0 • view
she’s gonna shine 😊🌟
jun 20, 2025, 4:52 pm • 0 0 • view
the Biden administration got this one right 🙂
jun 20, 2025, 5:12 pm • 0 0 • view
She's the Court's conscience.
jun 20, 2025, 3:23 pm • 12 0 • view
We all knew Gorsuch was in the pocket of big fat cat businesses
jun 21, 2025, 1:20 am • 0 0 • view
...ayup. bsky.app/profile/spla...
jun 20, 2025, 4:45 pm • 0 0 • view
🎯 🎯 🎯
jun 20, 2025, 3:46 pm • 1 0 • view
She’s fucking right!
jun 20, 2025, 3:56 pm • 5 0 • view
So far this SCOTUS has done little to understand or do in depth homework on an issue……rather they prefer the textualism, it is the easy out. Understanding the issue from all sides takes time and does not always fit with preconceived notions……thank you Justice Jackson
jun 20, 2025, 4:42 pm • 0 0 • view
That footnote’s last sentence is 👩🍳💋perfection.
jun 20, 2025, 4:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Kind of like you can find anything in the Bible to support whatever it is you want to cast as "God's will".
jun 20, 2025, 3:36 pm • 2 0 • view
She did not pull any punches. This is brilliant.
jun 20, 2025, 7:53 pm • 0 0 • view
Burn!
jun 21, 2025, 4:12 am • 3 0 • view
Has Gorsuch ever read any of the words that go out under his name, one wonders.
jun 20, 2025, 5:19 pm • 8 0 • view
They don’t like each other. And they probably shouldn’t.
jun 20, 2025, 4:49 pm • 0 0 • view
That is what I call conservative jurisprudence. Judge Jackson abides by the rules I learned in law school over forty years ago.
jun 21, 2025, 11:51 am • 13 0 • view
Woof.
jun 20, 2025, 3:10 pm • 0 0 • view
Anyone who thinks pure textualism is not malleable has had no exposure whatsoever to the Talmud
jun 20, 2025, 2:55 pm • 75 1 • view
Or Bible
jun 26, 2025, 4:34 pm • 0 0 • view
Or the Kabala.
jun 20, 2025, 4:41 pm • 12 0 • view
She towers over the conservatives intellectually & they know it & they’re resentful as hell.
jun 21, 2025, 5:15 am • 21 0 • view
She nails it. A brilliant, intellectually honest justice -- just what the American people need and want to see on the court. Perfect.
jun 20, 2025, 4:33 pm • 2 0 • view
Zing! Gorsuch, of course, can go eat a huge bag of dicks (or whatever other anatomical region you prefer).
jun 20, 2025, 4:57 pm • 1 0 • view
Perfection.
jun 21, 2025, 11:30 am • 1 0 • view
Maj'y ruled Letter of fed laws apply only to aspirants and employees: she became disabled WHILE working years on job, not hired AS disabled; when city change rules to cut health&ret benes to disabled, her city benes were cut, so Fed law not apply to her? Spirit of law=equal benes for disabled. Eh?
jun 21, 2025, 1:36 am • 0 0 • view
It was a textual word salad, just getting through that lengthy paragraph!?
jun 20, 2025, 5:04 pm • 0 0 • view
The Derridean judge we never knew we needed.
jun 20, 2025, 10:34 pm • 0 0 • view
Thank you, Mark. Carry on!
jun 20, 2025, 3:43 pm • 1 0 • view
So why’d she vote against Anderson? It was clearly the nation’s intent to keep little dicks like Donald off the ballot.
jun 20, 2025, 3:02 pm • 2 0 • view
Justice Jackson is a rock star!
jun 21, 2025, 11:38 am • 1 0 • view
Among many things, I am reminded of the john roberts court straining to see the words "convicted of" where the 14th amendment plainly reads "engaged in." Textualism was always a lie, but never more than when these liars invoke it.
jun 21, 2025, 4:24 am • 29 3 • view
I once heard the phrase “it can’t mean what it never meant” applied to interpreting the Bible in its historical context - I feel like that applies to so often to interpreting text.
jun 23, 2025, 4:48 pm • 1 0 • view
The last line will haunt us for generations.
jun 20, 2025, 3:06 pm • 4 0 • view
Context matters.
jun 21, 2025, 3:28 pm • 0 0 • view
this seems to refute Scalia-ism.
jun 20, 2025, 3:02 pm • 5 0 • view
Jackson is brilliant! I especially love her writing this paragraph
jun 20, 2025, 3:41 pm • 23 4 • view
Smartest one in the bench
jun 20, 2025, 4:04 pm • 10 0 • view
No doubt!
jun 20, 2025, 6:23 pm • 1 0 • view
One of my law professors called pure textualism the “f___k you” theory of statutory interpretation.
jun 20, 2025, 3:16 pm • 13 0 • view
That leaves a scar.
jun 21, 2025, 3:40 am • 7 0 • view
She's written the epitaph of SCOTUS.
jun 20, 2025, 3:22 pm • 2 0 • view
Pure textualism sounds an awful lot like moral absolutism.
jun 20, 2025, 4:40 pm • 0 0 • view
Purr textualism seems more like sophistry, weaseling out and interpreting words how you want. Just like ICE says they can hold people overnight in a basement of their office but it's not a "detention center" even though they detain people there.
jun 20, 2025, 3:20 pm • 1 0 • view
So does pure textualism
jun 20, 2025, 5:09 pm • 0 0 • view
best description of Gorsuch's dissent in the frozen trucker case i have ever seen
jun 20, 2025, 3:04 pm • 11 0 • view
He's so anally retentive; taught by nuns, I get it.
jun 20, 2025, 4:06 pm • 4 0 • view
She is a treasure!
jun 20, 2025, 5:45 pm • 5 1 • view
The woman is Brilliant...the end
jun 27, 2025, 11:19 pm • 0 0 • view
She runs intellectual circles around every last one of the Trump loving anti democracy “justices” Thank you President Biden for appointing this treasure and sharing her with America
jun 21, 2025, 1:16 pm • 13 0 • view
This is so excellent. Beautifully stated.
jun 20, 2025, 8:52 pm • 1 0 • view
How does one show up at work the next day after calling out their bullshit and be like, good morning, want a donut?
jun 20, 2025, 2:50 pm • 27 1 • view
Apparently Justices Barrett and Jackson have struck up a sort of friendship. What kind of relationship can you have with people you vehemently disagree with, but are also among the only people in the world who know what it means to wield such awesome power and shoulder such immense responsibility?
jun 20, 2025, 4:05 pm • 1 0 • view
I feel confident they already knew her position in advance of her putting it to paper.
jun 20, 2025, 3:48 pm • 8 0 • view
They dont I imagine.
jun 20, 2025, 2:55 pm • 0 0 • view
If it was me, I'd do it with a small smile.
jun 20, 2025, 2:57 pm • 1 0 • view
She's right, of course. It's laughable that text of a phrase like "unreasonable searches and seizures" somehow provides any specification at all. Ask 1,000 people what those words mean and you'll get wildly different answers. The text alone contains *almost no information at all*.
jun 20, 2025, 3:36 pm • 4 0 • view
The whole point of Textualism and other approaches concocted out of thin air is provide a pretext to disregard precedent, statutory history, congressional intent and everything else that might confound a preferred policy outcome.
jun 20, 2025, 5:26 pm • 9 0 • view
Like the facts of the case.
jun 21, 2025, 6:11 am • 0 0 • view
Brilliant.
jun 20, 2025, 4:13 pm • 1 0 • view
Brilliantly stated by Justice Jackson!
jun 20, 2025, 3:38 pm • 3 0 • view
In other words, “Textualism is Romantic.”
jun 20, 2025, 2:58 pm • 0 0 • view
That last sentence.🔥
jun 21, 2025, 5:58 pm • 1 0 • view
Spot on
jun 20, 2025, 4:32 pm • 0 0 • view
In my first semester of law school, we were schooled on how important ascertaining congressional intent was. Justice Jackson is so right about what the Gorsuch and the other “textualists” are trying to do.
jun 20, 2025, 6:37 pm • 26 1 • view
Surprised by the similarities of SC review and Bi local interpretation...
jun 20, 2025, 3:07 pm • 0 0 • view
Common sense says take intent into account when determining meaning. Duh.
jun 20, 2025, 5:16 pm • 0 0 • view
👍👏👊
jun 20, 2025, 3:42 pm • 1 0 • view
She's already tired of the bs and further realizes that you can't fall out of a ditch so calling them out not only preserves the historical record, but likely saves her mental health. It surely helps mine to read her.
jun 20, 2025, 4:46 pm • 0 0 • view
Damn, that is good.
jun 21, 2025, 2:46 pm • 1 0 • view
It is clear that the majority of justices are not acting in good faith. Instead, it becomes ever clearer that the majority is acting out of a combination of cynicism, egotism and opportunism. They are a stain on our democracy.
jun 20, 2025, 4:26 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, it seems obvious that if they can get the outcome they want with a textualism argument, they will use it, and if not, they'll use a different rationale. Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of conservative judicial activism.
jun 20, 2025, 5:59 pm • 7 0 • view
Who is responsible for this fiasco? Answer: SCOTUS. They granted DJT a crown 👑, gave him unlimited powers, guaranteed him no prosecution, continues to grant more power. He’s a PSYCHOPATH They don’t care-as long as they continue to remake the USA into THEIR vision of this WHITE nation. #Corrupt
jun 20, 2025, 3:37 pm • 4 1 • view
bsky.app/profile/riz4...
jun 20, 2025, 4:42 pm • 0 0 • view
Analyzing Congressional intent also would also acknowledge that Congress has a claim to Constitutional interpretation equal to that of the Court's.
jun 20, 2025, 3:02 pm • 1 0 • view
She understood the assignment.
jun 20, 2025, 2:51 pm • 39 0 • view
Yep the Court has various smart republicans working towards an end they want, justifying it with whatever they can find that fits. I'd argue that the entire court's failure to disqualify trump fit there as well. The "he was not found guilty yet," ignored that there was no appreciable doubt.
jun 20, 2025, 3:03 pm • 26 0 • view
"He wasn't found guilty of a thing we all watched him do on live TV" was really the last nail in the coffin for the court's legitimacy.
jun 20, 2025, 5:23 pm • 14 0 • view
Thank you. I’m sure I’ll enjoy.
jun 20, 2025, 3:54 pm • 2 0 • view
She showed us Gorsuch’s textualism is an excuse for a pre-determined outcome, like religion’s quoting the Bible to justify something horrible while the entire next chapter explains why that is a venal sin and very bad. It’s a bad excuse, she exposed the hypocrisy and America ain’t buying their crap.
jun 20, 2025, 5:03 pm • 1 0 • view
Except a large enough portion either does take this garbage or really doesn’t care because they too have a pre-determined outcome they want. The decisions and pretexts of conservative judges is just part of a larger sentiment of exclusion.
jun 20, 2025, 7:24 pm • 1 0 • view
Indeed! Jackson exposed the problem, she didn’t solve it.
jun 20, 2025, 7:40 pm • 1 0 • view
We have 3 brave heroes on the Supreme Court - they have the hardest and most frustrating job in the country. But they keep going. Like those 3, we all must do everything to speak out & do the next right thing.
jun 21, 2025, 12:41 pm • 3 0 • view
Like religion, "the law" is all about which words are allowed to matter.
jun 20, 2025, 3:15 pm • 2 0 • view
@thelouvreof.bsky.social This should be in the collection.
jun 20, 2025, 2:47 pm • 14 0 • view
The very polite and legalese way of saying "I see your bullshit and I'm calling it out."
jun 20, 2025, 2:40 pm • 245 6 • view
😍
jun 20, 2025, 4:52 pm • 0 0 • view
I will never understand folks who go on about the virtue of reading every comma, every conjunction, every part of speech carefully... And then ignore everything that is not included, deeming it irrelevant.
jun 20, 2025, 2:57 pm • 67 4 • view
pretending they have some kind of necromantic power to extract the True Meaning from a text that goes beyond what mere legislators intend is pretty central to the argument we should permit a gaggle of unelected doddering perverts with little constitutional authority to legislate from the bench
jun 20, 2025, 9:54 pm • 0 0 • view
Wow
jun 21, 2025, 5:41 am • 1 0 • view
She’s right you know.
jun 21, 2025, 1:42 pm • 1 0 • view
I've said it before - black and brown women will save us or at the very least fight the fight. They always have. They're the only ones that will stand up to this Idiocracy.
jun 20, 2025, 8:26 pm • 0 0 • view
She’s 100 percent right. It’s what Thomas has done in his opinions and dissents for decades now.
jun 20, 2025, 6:27 pm • 19 1 • view
Just wow. Preach, Justice!
jun 20, 2025, 7:08 pm • 0 0 • view
Cherry picking
jun 20, 2025, 4:19 pm • 0 0 • view
🔥🔥🔥
jun 21, 2025, 12:15 am • 0 0 • view
I think her critique can be shrunk down to this part very effectively:
jun 20, 2025, 8:29 pm • 31 1 • view
I’d like to have seen her add: “When tf have you so-called textualists paid any attention to the text of the 14th and 15th Amendments?”
jun 21, 2025, 3:00 am • 0 0 • view
This SCOTUS is a political disaster. They flip flop between textualism and congress’ intent as needed to justify their predetermined outcome.
jun 20, 2025, 3:36 pm • 3 0 • view
Trump is the perfect example of textualism in action. If the statute says "emergency" he sends out an EO declaring an "emergency" - anything he doesn't like. If it says "war" or "invasion" he declares an allegorical "war" or "invasion". SCOTUS must "defer", no matter how ridiculous.
jun 20, 2025, 4:05 pm • 3 0 • view
In the outer rings of practice, Federalists turn into attorneys using a dictionary as their main source and focusing on random words to feed good codes into a meat grinder. Plain language baby!
jun 20, 2025, 3:16 pm • 1 0 • view
Wow. Shot fired. And accurately.
jun 20, 2025, 3:50 pm • 5 0 • view
Perfectly scathing in that SCOTUS footnote sort of way. God love her!
jun 20, 2025, 2:39 pm • 63 0 • view
Our future Chief Justice right here
jun 20, 2025, 4:00 pm • 24 0 • view
From your lips to God’s ear!
jun 20, 2025, 4:04 pm • 14 0 • view
jun 20, 2025, 3:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Canada's "living tree doctrine": The Constitution is a dynamic document, capable of evolving & adapting to changing social contexts while remaining true to its original intent. It's not interpreted as a static text frozen in time, but as a living organism grows & adapts to modern realities
jun 20, 2025, 4:05 pm • 1 0 • view
Americans can end this tyranny tonight! You're free people in a free country. The actions of free men speak louder than the words of slaves. "Against all enemies foreign and domestic." Revolution is the solution. Rise up, fight back, and overthrow them all. It is your Right & Responsibility.
jun 20, 2025, 6:42 pm • 4 0 • view
She’s spot on! That’s why they advanced the pure textualism theory. A means to the judicial right wing end.
jun 21, 2025, 3:09 pm • 1 0 • view