Legislative intent matters in the US, but we have some schools of legal thought that are pretty skeptical of it, so it's not always the end-all. (The concern being, every time a court uses legislative intent to disregard the statutory text, it becomes a little bit harder for someone to understand what the laws that govern them are.)

Considering the number of "Originalists" on the court, you would think it is well established. Or is that just for the SC where judges have more latitude in getting the verdict they want?

Exactly, I refuse to believe that any reasonable person can be unsure of the intent of this law, even if the wording is arguably ambiguous.

This is not motivated by genuine intellectual or legal confusion. It's clearly driven by a motivation to release criminals back into society against the will of that society as codified by law. God have mercy on these lawyers who use subversive wordplays to allow violent criminals to harm more people, because soon the common people won't.

I suspect it has more to do with the imprisoning of people for drug offences, non-violent crime, and the background of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...

I also suspect the judiciary is not happy with 'mandatory minimums' which ties their hands, and make them pawns in this larger mass incarceration project

The thing is, almost every time when people put negative conditions (that you must not meet in order to qualify for something else) every condition is disqualifying, and that idea is expressed with "or". Which of these sounds more natural to you?

"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, and bacon."

"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, or bacon."

To me the second one sounds more natural. The first one sounds very unusual. I can have pie only on the condition that I don't have all three things? Okay... It sounds so strange because no one ever says that. I can't see someone using "and" there if they didn't mean it, because it's such an unusual grammatical construction.

The first case makes sense to me. These both are perfectly valid but mean different things:

You can call me for a ride if you are drunk and there are no taxis available.

You can call me for a ride if you are drunk or there are no taxis available.

Note that I didn't say that either didn't make sense or was grammatically incorrect, just that it sounds very strange.

I don't think your examples are that great, since you're listing requirements that "you" must meet to call for a ride, not things that disqualify "you" from calling for a ride. Also, using both "and" and "or" with lists of two items is common. Both "don't drink and drive" and "don't drink or drive" are plausible pieces of advice. "Twelve hours prior to the surgery don't drink, eat, and take any medicine" would be a very strange indication; it almost sounds like I'm being not to drink or eat, but to take any medicine of my choosing?