by
Anna
Moneymaker/Getty
Images)
Today,
the
Supreme
Court
handed
down
its
decision
in
Stanley
v.
City
of
Sanford,
Florida.
The
majority
decision,
penned
by
Neil
Gorsuch,
limited
the
application
of
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
saying
an
ex-firefighter
did
not
have
the
right
to
sue
her
former
employer
over
benefits.
But
more
than
just
further
eroding
discrimination
law
in
this
country,
the
decision
also
gave
us
a
peek
into
the
petty
back-and-forth
of
the
High
Court.
We
know
that
SCOTUS
is
not
immune
to
partisan
differences
causing
personal
rifts
between
co-workers.
And
that
seems
to
be
what’s
going
on
in
the
Stanley
case.
Because
Gorsuch
takes
the
time
to
call
out
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson’s
dissent,
strongly
implying
Jackson
seeks
a
judicial
methodology
that’s
sufficiently
“pliable
to
secure
the
result
they
seek.”
Failing
all
else,
Ms.
Stanley
and
the
dissent
ask
us
to
look
beyond
text
and
precedent.
Brief
for
Petitioner
29,
47;
post,
at
18
(opinion
of
JACKSON,
J.).
Finding
“pure
textualism”
insufficiently
pliable
to
secure
the
result
they
seek,
they
invoke
the
statute’s
“primary
purpose”
and
“legislative
history.”
Post,
at
1,
15,
22.
As
they
see
it,
the
ADA’s
goal
of
eradicating
disability-based
discrimination
would
be
best
served
by
a
decision
extending
Title
I’s
protections
beyond
those
who
hold
or
seek
a
job
to
retirees.
LOL.
Every
accusation
is
an
admission.
But
I
don’t
need
to
get
too
in
the
weeds
defending
KBJ,
she’s
got
that
pretty
well
covered.
It’s
a
glorious
footnote
that’s
deserving
of
the
hype
it’s
getting.
Here
it
is
in
its
entirety:
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.
Shorter
footnote
12:
fuck
you
and
your
textualism.
She
literally
says
everything
liberals
have
thought
about
textualism
for
generations,
but
says
it
much
more
forcefully
and
elegantly.
And
she’s
right
too
—
for
crying
out
loud:
“textualism”
was
used
to
determine
sanitation
does
not
refer
to
keeping
things
clean
because
that
would
not
align
with
conservative
policy
goals.
KBJ
is
exactly
spot
on
here.
Some
have
complained
explicitly
Sonia
Sotomayor
carved
footnote
12
out
of
her
signing
on
to
Jackson’s
opinion.
And
maybe
it
is
Sotomayor
trying
to
keep
the
peace
with
her
right-wing
colleagues.
But
this
is
the
same
justice
that
issued
a
dissent
“in
sadness”
this
week,
so
I
see
a
little
more
nuance
here.
It
was
Jackson
that
Gorsuch
picked
a
fight
with,
and
perhaps
not
joining
in
footnote
12
was
just
Sotomayor’s
way
of
letting
Jackson
have
the
stage
to
say
exactly
what
she
want
to
say.
And
this
footnote
is
a
real
*moment*
for
Justice
Jackson
—
one
Jackson
(and
Jackson
alone)
deserves
all
the
accolades
for.
Earlier:
The
Supreme
Court
Justices
Have
As
Much
Contempt
For
Each
Other
As
The
Rest
Of
America
Has
For
Them
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].