|
|
|
|
|
|
by alwaysdoit
1900 days ago
|
|
|
> To the extent that interpretive canons accurately describe how the English language is generally used, they are useful tools. … [But w]hen this Court describes canons as rules or quotes canons while omitting their caveats and limitations, we only encourage the lower courts to relegate statutory interpretation to a series of if-then computations. No reasonable reader interprets texts that way. [Alito in concurrence] Why would it be horrible if there were a well-defined grammar for legal texts? |
|
|