There’s something to “textualism”. Something. But you have to be wary of dogmas in the law. After almost 30 years of Nino pushing the idea, the practical translation of Nino’s textualism has been consistent, to be sure: gross favoritism in the courts to the parties who are already grossly favored in the first place. It certainly makes outcomes “predictable”, then: the government wins, the bank wins, the insurance company wins.
Judicial “restraint”, taken too far, becomes judicial abdication. That’s probably not Nino’s intent, and I certainly don’t want to “offend” him or his colleagues, but a little time on the receiving end of his own jurisprudence would be eye-opening for him, although some others have proven resistant to correction even then.
Let him try a case for a criminal defendant sometime. Incognito, of course.
He’s no dummy, after all.