Changes

In the words of the leading proponent of textualism, Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], statutory text always trumps "unenacted legislative intent."<ref>''INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca'', 480 U.S. 421, 453 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring)</ref>

In the words of the leading proponent of textualism, Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], statutory text always trumps "unenacted legislative intent."<ref>''INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca'', 480 U.S. 421, 453 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring)</ref>

Other leading textualists are Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], Seventh Circuit Judge [[Frank Easterbrook]] and [[Neil Gorsuch]].

Other leading textualists are Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], Seventh Circuit Judge [[Frank Easterbrook]] and [[Neil Gorsuch]].<ref name="Carter20MAR2017">{{cite web |title=9 Things You Should Know About Neil Gorsuch and Supreme Court Confirmations |author=Joe Carter  |publisher=The Gospel Coalition, Inc. |date=20 Mar 2017 |quote=In his judicial philosophy, Judge Gorsuch is considered a proponent of originalism, a manner of interpreting the Constitution that begins with the text and attempts to give that text the meaning it had when it was adopted, and textualism, a method of statutory interpretation that relies on the plain text of a statute to determine its meaning. |url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-neil-gorsuch-and-supreme-court-confirmations |accessdate=21 Mar 2017}}</ref>

<ref name="Carter20MAR2017">{{cite web |title=9 Things You Should Know About Neil Gorsuch and Supreme Court Confirmations |author=Joe Carter  |publisher=The Gospel Coalition, Inc. |date=20 Mar 2017 |quote=In his judicial philosophy, Judge Gorsuch is considered a proponent of originalism, a manner of interpreting the Constitution that begins with the text and attempts to give that text the meaning it had when it was adopted, and textualism, a method of statutory interpretation that relies on the plain text of a statute to determine its meaning. |url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-neil-gorsuch-and-supreme-court-confirmations |accessdate=21 Mar 2017}}</ref>

 

A problem with textualism is that its leading advocates sometimes seem to twist it beyond recognition in order to attain their desired result.  Justice Scalia, for example, held that selling violent [[video game]]s to children is a full [[First Amendment]] right, despite no textual support for that position.  Justice Gorsuch stated during oral argument on Oct. 8, 2019, that the text of the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act somehow supports special employment rights to transgendered persons: “I’m with you on the textual evidence.”<ref>https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/10/10/20906610/supreme-court-transgender-discrimination</ref>

The term "textualism" was originally coined by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his famous concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), which became more influential than the Court opinion.  Later, this term was used by a [[liberal]] commentator in an unsuccessful attempt to embarrass it.<ref>William N. Eskridge, Jr., The New Textualism, 37 UCLA L. Rev. 621, 623 (1990) (under the doctrine of textualism, "once the Court has ascertained a statute's plain meaning, consideration of legislative history becomes irrelevant").</ref>  An older form of textualism was the "plain meaning" doctrine.

The term "textualism" was originally coined by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his famous concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), which became more influential than the Court opinion.  Later, this term was used by a [[liberal]] commentator in an unsuccessful attempt to embarrass it.<ref>William N. Eskridge, Jr., The New Textualism, 37 UCLA L. Rev. 621, 623 (1990) (under the doctrine of textualism, "once the Court has ascertained a statute's plain meaning, consideration of legislative history becomes irrelevant").</ref>  An older form of textualism was the "plain meaning" doctrine.