Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is there any school of legal interpretation that is explicitly outcome-blind? It's really the only thing I want in a judge, but none of the main schools seem to believe in it.
By outcome-blind I specifically mean that there is no sense that a ruling should be decided differently just because the 'correct' legal reading would result in something absurd or horrible. It seems like there's always this tendency to say "but if we rule the way that is obviously correct, it causes problems xyz and we can't have that" even among textualists and literalists.
I'm thinking of the "An AR-15 is not technically a gun" kind of ruling, or the "EPA gets to regulate every puddle" kind of ruling, or any of the various "such a precedent would eliminate most of the executive branch" kind of rulings. Though I can't link specific examples as I'm in a hurry and on my phone.
It's hard to make legal interpretation truly outcome blind because even if we're talking about strict textualism, often the text of the law cares about outcomes in some way.
To take a random example that comes up in my line of work, here's 28 USC § 1404(a): "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented."
To interpret and apply this statute, the court has to care about what outcome is best for the "convenience of parties and witnesses" and "in the interest of justice." There's no way to apply this statute in an outcome-blind way because the text of the statute explicitly cares about outcomes.
Even when we're talking about laws that are less explicit in their reference to outcomes, it's hard to actually interpret those laws in a vacuum without understanding the context of outcomes. Let's say I argue that the 2nd amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear a copy of my neighbor's house key, because a house key can be used as a weapon for the purpose of self defense. If we are naïve about outcomes this seems like a valid enough argument. But in practice, it's an absurd interpretation of the 2nd amendment to say it gives people the right to posses copies of their neighbors' house keys, and clearly the outcome of such an interpretation is contrary to the text and original intent of the 2nd amendment.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, no school would be completely outcome blind because the whole point of having a school of legal interpretation is to determine what kind of outcome is correct. But I think I know what you are intending to ask with this question, and the answer would be textualism. Possibly originalism.
Textualism says to interpret the law based on the exact words of the law and nothing else. That includes utilitarian concerns about outcomes. If the way the law is written results in a "bad" outcome, then change the law.
Originalism is similar to textualism, but bases it on the text of the law as it was intended at the time the law was passed. This can lead to outcomes that go against the literal words of the law if the outcome would be an outcome that the lawmakers very likely did not intend, or specifically intended the opposite.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link