Interesting candid reply by a law burger. Saw something to similar effect being proudly proclaimed on KF, a court decision, I don't trust them enough to pass it on but I really wonder... Any actually educated Burgers here to contribute? No r/redscarepod or 4chan lumpen, please.
Anonymous :
2 days ago :
No.4810
>>4813
>>4810
Nothing in that post is about textualism. Textualism would be relevant if it were a question of interpreting established law by its intent or merely by its phrasing. What the poster is referring to is *enforcement* of existing law, not interpretation. Setting aside the Trump policies that 'aren't supported by the law or by judicial precedent,' Mr. rawbdor claims that 'an equal number' of his policies follow not only the letter but also the spirit of the current US legal code.
Clean out your ears and hit the books.
He's not a law burger. What he's describing is referred to as textualism in American jurisprudence and it's very retarded.
Anonymous :
2 days ago :
No.4813
>>4830
>>4813
That's literally "textbook" textualism. He's saying that the courts are responsive to these old laws on the books.
>>4838
>>4810
He's not a law burger. What he's describing is referred to as textualism in American jurisprudence and it's very retarded.
Nothing in that post is about textualism. Textualism would be relevant if it were a question of interpreting established law by its intent or merely by its phrasing. What the poster is referring to is *enforcement* of existing law, not interpretation. Setting aside the Trump policies that 'aren't supported by the law or by judicial precedent,' Mr. rawbdor claims that 'an equal number' of his policies follow not only the letter but also the spirit of the current US legal code.
Clean out your ears and hit the books.
>>4813
>>4810
Nothing in that post is about textualism. Textualism would be relevant if it were a question of interpreting established law by its intent or merely by its phrasing. What the poster is referring to is *enforcement* of existing law, not interpretation. Setting aside the Trump policies that 'aren't supported by the law or by judicial precedent,' Mr. rawbdor claims that 'an equal number' of his policies follow not only the letter but also the spirit of the current US legal code.
Clean out your ears and hit the books.
That's literally "textbook" textualism. He's saying that the courts are responsive to these old laws on the books.
>>4835
Why do so many people make discussions on the internet and then immediately attempt to reprimand or scold people who do not provide an answer or form of feedback that they agree with while lashing out with some obligatory judgmental command?
Consider the possibility that >>4813>>4810
Nothing in that post is about textualism. Textualism would be relevant if it were a question of interpreting established law by its intent or merely by its phrasing. What the poster is referring to is *enforcement* of existing law, not interpretation. Setting aside the Trump policies that 'aren't supported by the law or by judicial precedent,' Mr. rawbdor claims that 'an equal number' of his policies follow not only the letter but also the spirit of the current US legal code.
Clean out your ears and hit the books.
is not OP. Your rhetorical question then becomes retarded.
It's not textualism, which refers to how laws are interpreted. This is about the administrative state which pre-empts judicial power by deciding which cases to, and which not to, prosecute
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.4845
>>4887
Hello, OP here. I only made the first original post in this thread, every other post is someone else. Hope that clears things up. (Maybe tripcodes would be a good idea in some cases..)
The issue the reddit comment is talking about is enforcement. >>4845 gave the answer I was looking for. I do know that the US has a lot of these zombie or forgotten about laws in the books but I wasn't sure if it really was as much compared to newer laws as the reddit commenter was implying. Also, as I have heard, old laws which are unscrupulously brought up or cited in bad faith are ignored or ruled against to some degree.
What intrigued me about this comment was that it was coming from a liberal or left-ish perspective and it was the first kind of squeamish admission of something that I had only seen in right wing swamps; namely that Trump is "within the law" in some circumstances, and that the overwhelming waterfall of "courts defy Trump" headlines in nearly every news source is, at least in part, either wishful thinking or blind naivete.
Yes, American law is really as bad as all that.
Whenever you hear resistance libs screeching about Trump violating "norms," they're really talking about this kind of stuff. "Deep state" isn't quite the term... more like "administration by legal counsel." There's a shit-ton of stuff on the books that has passed out of enforcement -- most commonly because prosecutors have thrown up their hands over time about the prospect of having to try a lot of cases without certainty of success. That goes to the point above -- it doesn't require zany Federalist Society legal theory. It's a simple fact that American public sentiment has become waaaay more liberal on a lot of issues in the postwar era, but no one has gone through the books and done a clean sweep of existing laws. That means that you have a huge number of laws on the books that have a straightforward plaintext meaning that grant state powers to do things that were broadly accepted in 1955 and are shockingly reactionary in 2025.
It's essential for non-burgers to understand that there's no automated clean-up process in American law. Laws pass out of force because prosecutors are lazy. If you have some crime that's not going to make the headlines and it doesn't have a supremely aggrieved victim, then a prosecutor doesn't want to put in effort to prove things that aren't lock-solid. Within other organizations, the legal counsel has a kind of working approximation of what the prosecutor is un/willing to go after, and these people (the legal counsels) basically what counts as "law" for institutions, and by extension, for most Americans. Immigration is the perfect example of all of this. The relevant enforcement agencies don't want to touch 99.9999% of immigration because the juice isn't worth the squeeze. But the laws are still on the books.
The extreme version of all of this is the Comstock Act. Now that Roe has been overturned, there's a straightforward legal argument to apply an 1873 "anti-obscenity" law to contemporary social policing. It would be perfectly legal for the Trump administration to use this to start to police the postal system. This strikes at the way that a huge number of American women get abortifacients like mifepristone. Liberals will bend themselves into pretzels trying to demonstrate why this law shouldn't be applied to this, but it's really not a reach and it doesn't rely on some kind of arcane interpretation of the Founders or whatever.
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.4868
>>4869
>>4868
>based
4chan is still up and active if you want to be amongst your 2016+ peers.
>>4863
>no reddit or 4chan [...]
>OP behaves like every redditor and newcomer to 4chan over the past fifteen years
sasuga
Unlike your post which reads like the most based epic oldfag in existence wrote it. Goddamn you're cool.
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.4887
>>4898
>>4887
"Within the law" is meaningless, really. The law is 100% fake. It's all open to interpretation, which judges abuse to get the political outcomes they desire. That's why everyone makes a big deal over who appointed which judge.
>>4899>>4887
Fair enough. Have a nice day, OP. Shame about the diamond-dozen newfag reactionary you got in your thread.
Hello, OP here. I only made the first original post in this thread, every other post is someone else. Hope that clears things up. (Maybe tripcodes would be a good idea in some cases..)
The issue the reddit comment is talking about is enforcement. >>4845
Yes, American law is really as bad as all that.
Whenever you hear resistance libs screeching about Trump violating "norms," they're really talking about this kind of stuff. "Deep state" isn't quite the term... more like "administration by legal counsel." There's a shit-ton of stuff on the books that has passed out of enforcement -- most commonly because prosecutors have thrown up their hands over time about the prospect of having to try a lot of cases without certainty of success. That goes to the point above -- it doesn't require zany Federalist Society legal theory. It's a simple fact that American public sentiment has become waaaay more liberal on a lot of issues in the postwar era, but no one has gone through the books and done a clean sweep of existing laws. That means that you have a huge number of laws on the books that have a straightforward plaintext meaning that grant state powers to do things that were broadly accepted in 1955 and are shockingly reactionary in 2025.
It's essential for non-burgers to understand that there's no automated clean-up process in American law. Laws pass out of force because prosecutors are lazy. If you have some crime that's not going to make the headlines and it doesn't have a supremely aggrieved victim, then a prosecutor doesn't want to put in effort to prove things that aren't lock-solid. Within other organizations, the legal counsel has a kind of working approximation of what the prosecutor is un/willing to go after, and these people (the legal counsels) basically what counts as "law" for institutions, and by extension, for most Americans. Immigration is the perfect example of all of this. The relevant enforcement agencies don't want to touch 99.9999% of immigration because the juice isn't worth the squeeze. But the laws are still on the books.
The extreme version of all of this is the Comstock Act. Now that Roe has been overturned, there's a straightforward legal argument to apply an 1873 "anti-obscenity" law to contemporary social policing. It would be perfectly legal for the Trump administration to use this to start to police the postal system. This strikes at the way that a huge number of American women get abortifacients like mifepristone. Liberals will bend themselves into pretzels trying to demonstrate why this law shouldn't be applied to this, but it's really not a reach and it doesn't rely on some kind of arcane interpretation of the Founders or whatever.
gave the answer I was looking for. I do know that the US has a lot of these zombie or forgotten about laws in the books but I wasn't sure if it really was as much compared to newer laws as the reddit commenter was implying. Also, as I have heard, old laws which are unscrupulously brought up or cited in bad faith are ignored or ruled against to some degree.
What intrigued me about this comment was that it was coming from a liberal or left-ish perspective and it was the first kind of squeamish admission of something that I had only seen in right wing swamps; namely that Trump is "within the law" in some circumstances, and that the overwhelming waterfall of "courts defy Trump" headlines in nearly every news source is, at least in part, either wishful thinking or blind naivete.
>>4887
Hello, OP here. I only made the first original post in this thread, every other post is someone else. Hope that clears things up. (Maybe tripcodes would be a good idea in some cases..)
The issue the reddit comment is talking about is enforcement. >>4845 gave the answer I was looking for. I do know that the US has a lot of these zombie or forgotten about laws in the books but I wasn't sure if it really was as much compared to newer laws as the reddit commenter was implying. Also, as I have heard, old laws which are unscrupulously brought up or cited in bad faith are ignored or ruled against to some degree.
What intrigued me about this comment was that it was coming from a liberal or left-ish perspective and it was the first kind of squeamish admission of something that I had only seen in right wing swamps; namely that Trump is "within the law" in some circumstances, and that the overwhelming waterfall of "courts defy Trump" headlines in nearly every news source is, at least in part, either wishful thinking or blind naivete.
"Within the law" is meaningless, really. The law is 100% fake. It's all open to interpretation, which judges abuse to get the political outcomes they desire. That's why everyone makes a big deal over who appointed which judge.
Anonymous :
20 hours ago :
No.4899
>>4908
>>4899
I am not sure how this thread derailed so badly but my response (the first response to this thread, at the very top of the page, that featured the words "textualism" and "american jurisprudence" and "retarded") was correct. This is an outgrowth of textualism. Yes we can nitpick cannons or whatever but the basic idea that the laws in the books are fixed and literal and static and that the courts have to muck around in the mud with the administration around laws which are unenforceable or have fallen into desuetude is what underlies all of this.
Other posters have argued that this is a question of enforcement - that's a given, but in order for a law to be enforceable at all a court has to be willing to play ball. The courts are making choices here, and the framework under which they are making those choices is quintessentially textualist.
Finally, Rawbdor isn't a lawyer. The sorts of questions he is asking, the way that he's framing the administration's actions - it doesn't scream formal legal education. This administration has opened up some interesting legal frontiers, but this discussion isn't one of them.
>>4887
Hello, OP here. I only made the first original post in this thread, every other post is someone else. Hope that clears things up. (Maybe tripcodes would be a good idea in some cases..)
The issue the reddit comment is talking about is enforcement. >>4845 gave the answer I was looking for. I do know that the US has a lot of these zombie or forgotten about laws in the books but I wasn't sure if it really was as much compared to newer laws as the reddit commenter was implying. Also, as I have heard, old laws which are unscrupulously brought up or cited in bad faith are ignored or ruled against to some degree.
What intrigued me about this comment was that it was coming from a liberal or left-ish perspective and it was the first kind of squeamish admission of something that I had only seen in right wing swamps; namely that Trump is "within the law" in some circumstances, and that the overwhelming waterfall of "courts defy Trump" headlines in nearly every news source is, at least in part, either wishful thinking or blind naivete.
Fair enough. Have a nice day, OP. Shame about the diamond-dozen newfag reactionary you got in your thread.
Anonymous :
13 hours ago :
No.4908
>>4912
>>4908
Textualism is about interpretation. It's when you interpret a law based solely on the text of the law, not extraneous stuff like say Congressional debate about the law. It has nothing to do with enforcing old laws. Executive enforces laws. Judiciary interprets them. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>4915>>4908
I don't understand the connection to textualism you're making-- I've never heard it used to describe anything other than a doctrine of constitutional or common law interpretation. Can you clarify? Desuetude seems like a more relevant legal concept, but in this case in particular, I don't see how it applies either. The only example the reddit post cites is 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which is only 30 years old. I don't have a legal education myself, so I'm asking only in the spirit of inquiry, not with argumentative intent.
>>4899
>>4887
Fair enough. Have a nice day, OP. Shame about the diamond-dozen newfag reactionary you got in your thread.
I am not sure how this thread derailed so badly but my response (the first response to this thread, at the very top of the page, that featured the words "textualism" and "american jurisprudence" and "retarded") was correct. This is an outgrowth of textualism. Yes we can nitpick cannons or whatever but the basic idea that the laws in the books are fixed and literal and static and that the courts have to muck around in the mud with the administration around laws which are unenforceable or have fallen into desuetude is what underlies all of this.
Other posters have argued that this is a question of enforcement - that's a given, but in order for a law to be enforceable at all a court has to be willing to play ball. The courts are making choices here, and the framework under which they are making those choices is quintessentially textualist.
Finally, Rawbdor isn't a lawyer. The sorts of questions he is asking, the way that he's framing the administration's actions - it doesn't scream formal legal education. This administration has opened up some interesting legal frontiers, but this discussion isn't one of them.
Anonymous :
11 hours ago :
No.4912
>>4914
>>4912
You're being obtuse and your framing of textualism and government is reductive
>>4908
>>4899
I am not sure how this thread derailed so badly but my response (the first response to this thread, at the very top of the page, that featured the words "textualism" and "american jurisprudence" and "retarded") was correct. This is an outgrowth of textualism. Yes we can nitpick cannons or whatever but the basic idea that the laws in the books are fixed and literal and static and that the courts have to muck around in the mud with the administration around laws which are unenforceable or have fallen into desuetude is what underlies all of this.
Other posters have argued that this is a question of enforcement - that's a given, but in order for a law to be enforceable at all a court has to be willing to play ball. The courts are making choices here, and the framework under which they are making those choices is quintessentially textualist.
Finally, Rawbdor isn't a lawyer. The sorts of questions he is asking, the way that he's framing the administration's actions - it doesn't scream formal legal education. This administration has opened up some interesting legal frontiers, but this discussion isn't one of them.
Textualism is about interpretation. It's when you interpret a law based solely on the text of the law, not extraneous stuff like say Congressional debate about the law. It has nothing to do with enforcing old laws. Executive enforces laws. Judiciary interprets them. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>4912
>>4908
Textualism is about interpretation. It's when you interpret a law based solely on the text of the law, not extraneous stuff like say Congressional debate about the law. It has nothing to do with enforcing old laws. Executive enforces laws. Judiciary interprets them. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You're being obtuse and your framing of textualism and government is reductive
Anonymous :
9 hours ago :
No.4915
>>4916
>>4915
They're either retarded or trolling. Textualism has nothing to do with what they're saying. It's also more a statutory law thing than common law, since common law doesn't exactly have a "text".
>>4921>>4915
You are correct
>>4908
>>4899
I am not sure how this thread derailed so badly but my response (the first response to this thread, at the very top of the page, that featured the words "textualism" and "american jurisprudence" and "retarded") was correct. This is an outgrowth of textualism. Yes we can nitpick cannons or whatever but the basic idea that the laws in the books are fixed and literal and static and that the courts have to muck around in the mud with the administration around laws which are unenforceable or have fallen into desuetude is what underlies all of this.
Other posters have argued that this is a question of enforcement - that's a given, but in order for a law to be enforceable at all a court has to be willing to play ball. The courts are making choices here, and the framework under which they are making those choices is quintessentially textualist.
Finally, Rawbdor isn't a lawyer. The sorts of questions he is asking, the way that he's framing the administration's actions - it doesn't scream formal legal education. This administration has opened up some interesting legal frontiers, but this discussion isn't one of them.
I don't understand the connection to textualism you're making-- I've never heard it used to describe anything other than a doctrine of constitutional or common law interpretation. Can you clarify? Desuetude seems like a more relevant legal concept, but in this case in particular, I don't see how it applies either. The only example the reddit post cites is 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which is only 30 years old. I don't have a legal education myself, so I'm asking only in the spirit of inquiry, not with argumentative intent.
>>4915
>>4908
I don't understand the connection to textualism you're making-- I've never heard it used to describe anything other than a doctrine of constitutional or common law interpretation. Can you clarify? Desuetude seems like a more relevant legal concept, but in this case in particular, I don't see how it applies either. The only example the reddit post cites is 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which is only 30 years old. I don't have a legal education myself, so I'm asking only in the spirit of inquiry, not with argumentative intent.
They're either retarded or trolling. Textualism has nothing to do with what they're saying. It's also more a statutory law thing than common law, since common law doesn't exactly have a "text".
>>4915
>>4908
I don't understand the connection to textualism you're making-- I've never heard it used to describe anything other than a doctrine of constitutional or common law interpretation. Can you clarify? Desuetude seems like a more relevant legal concept, but in this case in particular, I don't see how it applies either. The only example the reddit post cites is 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which is only 30 years old. I don't have a legal education myself, so I'm asking only in the spirit of inquiry, not with argumentative intent.
You are correct