Judges should use consequences to guide statutory interpretation.

Evidence

The main choices in “interpretive” theory that the new learning allows are either some version of strict construction or a pragmatic approach in which, recognizing the difficult and problematic nature of statutory interpretation, judges use consequences to guide their decisions, always bearing in mind that the relevant consequences include systemic ones such as debasing the currency of statutory language by straying too far from it. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 116

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation as consequence-guided while preserving systemic concerns.
• XREF: connects to: Literal statutory interpretations are defeasible starting points — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 303; Courts sometimes reach wrong outcomes to avoid bad future rules — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 548; Pragmatic law judges rules by their consequences, not their origins. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 38 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Pragmatic law judges rules by their consequences, not their origins. #corroborates (0.90) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 38
• Courts sometimes reach wrong outcomes to avoid bad future rules #exemplifies (0.70) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 548
• Literal application of legal rules sometimes produces absurd against-purpose outcomes #exemplifies (0.65) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 284