The Real Problem with Textualusm

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Oh how I wish the mods would give us a BS flag.  Scalia didn't concern himself with intent. 

http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13416169-scalia-judges-should-interpret-words-not-intent?lite

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Then there's this which sounds oddly familiar:

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

No slip of the tongue here.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Oh how I wish the mods would give us a BS flag.  Scalia didn't concern himself with intent. 

http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13416169-scalia-judges-should-interpret-words-not-intent?lite

And I wish for a Stoopid Farmer™ Flag myself. If you had comprehended what I had posted you would've understood that intent is not part of textualism. In fact, I stated as much. The fact that your vocabulary is woefully lacking makes you incapable of understanding the word "eschew". Coupled with you being an intellectually lazy Stoopid Farmer™ compounds the problem. it was Scalia's emphasis on textualism and his eschewing original intent that pretty much put an end to that theory of interpretation. "Eschew", look it up.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Then there's this which sounds oddly familiar:

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

No slip of the tongue here.

Again you're tripped up by your inadequate vocabulary. Scrivener refers to an error in the final transcription of the law not in the court's holding. Fcukin' maroon.

However a closer look at Oklahoma's rape and consent laws confirms a serious legislative error in the writing of the laws of what constitutes rape/consent/intoxication which the courts rightly refused to engage in rewriting the legislation.

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

Darth Cheney wrote:At first I was amused watching Dr. Dildo in a mental wrestling match with Gomezz but now it is just sad. The dip shiste thinks he is making some points but only in his sick, demented mind. I wish to God he would just shut his pie hole so he quits advertising he is in idiot and removing any doubt.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:At first I was amused watching Dr. Dildo in a mental wrestling match with Gomezz but now it is just sad. The dip shiste thinks he is making some points but only in his sick, demented mind. I wish to God he would just shut his pie hole so he quits advertising he is in idiot and removing any doubt.

Sad why?   Because Gomezz always has to resort to personal attacks?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:At first I was amused watching Dr. Dildo in a mental wrestling match with Gomezz but now it is just sad. The dip shiste thinks he is making some points but only in his sick, demented mind. I wish to God he would just shut his pie hole so he quits advertising he is in idiot and removing any doubt.

Sad why?   Because Gomezz always has to resort to personal attacks?

Ohh FcknBooHoo. You come to spar with me you better come loaded for bear. Personal attacks? Well look in the mirror Fcukstik™. You push me and I push back twice as hard. I'll hit you with everything in my arsenal including world salads and baffling bullsht. I'll let you try to sort it all out.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Then there's this which sounds oddly familiar:

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

No slip of the tongue here.

Again you're tripped up by your inadequate vocabulary. Scrivener refers to an error in the final transcription of the law not in the court's holding. Fcukin' maroon.

However a closer look at Oklahoma's rape and consent laws confirms a serious legislative error in the writing of the laws of what constitutes rape/consent/intoxication which the courts rightly refused to engage in rewriting the legislation.

You're the one who called it a slip of the tongue.  Not me.

Rightly refused?!?  Here's a good word for you,  consistency.  Crikers Gomerr, flip-flop much?  A few posts ago you said a textualist would have accounted for the "absurd effects of the law".  You really need to get your story straight before you start up your spin machine.

The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute. When construing criminal statutes, we follow the rule of strict construction.  We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language or what its terms justify. We construe any criminal statute strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.  We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. To determine the legislature's intent, we begin with the statute itself, but may consider similar statutes, case law and dictionary definitions, the evil to be remedied, and the consequences of any particular interpretation. We construe statutes together, avoiding any interpretation which would render any part of them useless, superfluous or inconsistent, and will try to reconcile potentially conflicting provisions. We presume that a statute enacted by the legislature is constitutional.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:At first I was amused watching Dr. Dildo in a mental wrestling match with Gomezz but now it is just sad. The dip shiste thinks he is making some points but only in his sick, demented mind. I wish to God he would just shut his pie hole so he quits advertising he is in idiot and removing any doubt.

Sad why?   Because Gomezz always has to resort to personal attacks?

Ohh FcknBooHoo. You come to spar with me you better come loaded for bear. Personal attacks? Well look in the mirror Fcukstik™. You push me and I push back twice as hard. I'll hit you with everything in my arsenal including world salads and baffling bullsht. I'll let you try to sort it all out.

WTF? A crumby gif from the crappy Matrix? That's all you got you sorry sack of crap!

Dr. Jones wrote:

WTF? A crumby gif from the crappy Matrix? That's all you got you sorry sack of crap!

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Then there's this which sounds oddly familiar:

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

No slip of the tongue here.

Again you're tripped up by your inadequate vocabulary. Scrivener refers to an error in the final transcription of the law not in the court's holding. Fcukin' maroon.

However a closer look at Oklahoma's rape and consent laws confirms a serious legislative error in the writing of the laws of what constitutes rape/consent/intoxication which the courts rightly refused to engage in rewriting the legislation.

You're the one who called it a slip of the tongue.  Not me.

Rightly refused?!?  Here's a good word for you,  consistency.  Crikers Gomerr, flip-flop much?  A few posts ago you said a textualist would have accounted for the "absurd effects of the law".  You really need to get your story straight before you start up your spin machine.

The Oklahoma Court of Appeals cited in Leftwich vs State 2015 in stare decisis the following [footnotes have been removed for brevity]:

The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute. When construing criminal statutes, we follow the rule of strict construction.  We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language or what its terms justify. We construe any criminal statute strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.  We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. To determine the legislature's intent, we begin with the statute itself, but may consider similar statutes, case law and dictionary definitions, the evil to be remedied, and the consequences of any particular interpretation. We construe statutes together, avoiding any interpretation which would render any part of them useless, superfluous or inconsistent, and will try to reconcile potentially conflicting provisions. We presume that a statute enacted by the legislature is constitutional.

And there we have it in the words of the Oklahoma Appeals Court, "strict construction" which in the words of Scalia is not textualism.

A reminder:  "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be..."

However, that is the judicial interpretation the Oklahoma Court chooses to adopt in this case, so you can whine and cry and bitch as the pussy you are but it doesn't change jack. Grow up dumb fcuk

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Scalia brought textualusm front and center in legal conversations, but the problem is that too often textualists can't see the forest through the trees.  This girl was forced to perform oral sex while intoxicated, but because she was intoxicated she was not considered a victim.  We need common sense, not semantics.


Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/index.html

You are confusing textualism with strict constructionism. Strict construction requires an application of the text only as written. Textualist theory holds that the text's ordinary meaning governs its interpretation and eschews the use of non-textual sources such as legislative intent in passage of the law. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Textualists acknowledge the doctrine of "scrivener's error" or in Latin, lapsus linguae (slip of the tongue). This doctrine accounts for a situation when it is apparent that a mistake in expression could lead to an absurd conclusion. Scalia stated as much in Green v Bock Laundry "We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result." Therefore a textualist in the Oklahoma rape trial would have taken into account the absurd effects of the law.

Then there's this which sounds oddly familiar:

"We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language," the court ruled.

No slip of the tongue here.

Again you're tripped up by your inadequate vocabulary. Scrivener refers to an error in the final transcription of the law not in the court's holding. Fcukin' maroon.

However a closer look at Oklahoma's rape and consent laws confirms a serious legislative error in the writing of the laws of what constitutes rape/consent/intoxication which the courts rightly refused to engage in rewriting the legislation.

You're the one who called it a slip of the tongue.  Not me.

Rightly refused?!?  Here's a good word for you,  consistency.  Crikers Gomerr, flip-flop much?  A few posts ago you said a textualist would have accounted for the "absurd effects of the law".  You really need to get your story straight before you start up your spin machine.

The Oklahoma Court of Appeals cited in Leftwich vs State 2015 in stare decisis the following [footnotes have been removed for brevity]:

The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute. When construing criminal statutes, we follow the rule of strict construction.  We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language or what its terms justify. We construe any criminal statute strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.  We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. To determine the legislature's intent, we begin with the statute itself, but may consider similar statutes, case law and dictionary definitions, the evil to be remedied, and the consequences of any particular interpretation. We construe statutes together, avoiding any interpretation which would render any part of them useless, superfluous or inconsistent, and will try to reconcile potentially conflicting provisions. We presume that a statute enacted by the legislature is constitutional.

And there we have it in the words of the Oklahoma Appeals Court, "strict construction" which in the words of Scalia is not textualism.

A reminder:  "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be..."

However, that is the judicial interpretation the Oklahoma Court chooses to adopt in this case, so you can whine and cry and bitch as the pussy you are but it doesn't change jack. Grow up dumb fcuk

Not only did Scalia admittedly empathize more with strict constructionism, but he also called at a form of textualusm.  He was obviously a little confused and I think the applesauce may have gotten to his head.

Also as this University of Chicago Law Blog author points out, the thin line between the two is so blurry it's almost nonexistent:

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/10/i_am_not_a_stri.html

Dr. Jones wrote:OK, time to clear the mud out of the water....How do you think Scalia would have ruled on this case?