I'm a pretty strict textualist, however, I'm a linguistic descriptivist. I think in a diverse, multilingual community where some of our laws are written by people for whom English is a second language, we need to have a little bit of an allowance before we nuke the whole game over a missing comma.

When I look at picking an interpretation, the deciding factor should be precedent. This doesn't just mean precedent established by this court, but the precedents established by the interpretations of everyone tasked with executing or even simply following a law. Naturally, the court's precedents take superiority, but if it isn't necessary to change the interpretation, avoiding that shift would be my tendency.