{"id":844,"date":"2022-02-01T16:31:58","date_gmt":"2022-02-01T21:31:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print\/volume-20-issue-2-summer-2022-2\/non-textualism-and-the-duck-season-rabbit-season-dramaturgical-dyad-a-response-to-professor-cass-sunstein\/"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:46","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:46","slug":"non-textualism-and-the-duck-season-rabbit-season-dramaturgical-dyad-a-response-to-professor-cass-sunstein","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print-2\/volume-20-issue-2-summer-2022-2\/non-textualism-and-the-duck-season-rabbit-season-dramaturgical-dyad-a-response-to-professor-cass-sunstein\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-Textualism and the Duck Season-Rabbit Season Dramaturgical Dyad: A Response to Professor Cass Sunstein (and Others)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Debate regarding legal interpretation is intense. A standard critique of so-called originalism and textualism is that such methodologies are not neutral or objective; rather, they must implicitly rely on unstated norms. This critique is usually put forth by non-textualists. But their critique, that is, the critique put forward by non-textualists, equally applies to their preferred modes of interpretation, as it must apply to all methods of interpretation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Keep reading\u00a0Non<\/em>-Textualism and the Duck Season-Rabbit Season Dramaturgical Dyad: A Response to Professor Cass Sunstein<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Debate regarding legal interpretation is intense. A standard critique of so-called originalism and textualism is that such methodologies are not neutral or objective; rather, they must implicitly rely on unstated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8545,"featured_media":0,"parent":842,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-844","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/844","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8545"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=844"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/844\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1898,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/844\/revisions\/1898"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}