![]() Although both purposivists and textualists may use any of these five tools, a judge’s theory of statutory interpretation may influence the order in which these tools are applied and how much weight is given to each tool. Most frequently, judges rely on five types of interpretive tools. Regardless of their interpretive theory, judges use many of the same tools to gather evidence of statutory meaning. Courts applying either theory can encounter interpretive difficulties in disputes that apply a statute in ways Congress may not have anticipated. While purposivists argue that courts should prioritize interpretations that advance the statute’s purpose, textualists maintain that judges should primarily confine their focus to the statute’s text. Interpretation-purposivism and textualism-disagree about how judges can best adhere to this ideal of legislative supremacy. Proponents of the two main theories of statutory Meaning of statutes, the prevailing view is that a judge’s task is not to make the law, but rather to interpret the law made by Congress. Is, as Chief Justice John Marshall announced in 1803. federal government, it is the job of courts to say what the law ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |