Argus Leader Media v. Hogstad

[¶19.], The Court’s interpretation of a statute today requires the removal of a comma and the addition of words to the text. The Court states that it is guided by the purpose of a general act rather than the statutory language we must interpret. Using an act’s general purpose to change text is a breathtaking proposition. It-should be so because, as this case demonstrates, the Court’s interpretation makes other statutory language meaningless; it is based' on a “guiding purpose” that is necessarily contrary to the purpose of the language that is being construed; and it eschews well-accepted"…