Interesting info offered by BYOB in his post:

The fight is often portrayed as a philosophical battle between between textualists, who think a law means what its words say, and purposivists, who think it means what Congress meant it to say. But there’s not as much distance between the two camps as some people believe. Justice Antonin Scalia, the king of the textualists, wrote in his 1997 book “A Matter of Interpretation[/url] that “[i]n textual interpretation, context is everything.” Justice Clarence Thomas, also a textualist, held in a [url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1376] decision that same year that the word “employees” in the Title VII antidiscrimination statute also referred to “former employees” because his interpretation was “more consistent with the broader context” of the law.

Sounds like even textualists might think beyond the text itself.