Not to wave anybody off an interesting rabbit hole, but is that the germane difference here? My understanding: common law features a relatively smaller "source of truth" of written law, and relatively more expansive and variably-binding jurisprudence, where judge decisions set precedent and shape the law. Civil law writes almost everything down ahead of time.

I guess civil law gives you less room to explore ideas like "living" statutes and laws that gain and change meaning over time; if there was such a change, you'd write it down?

Regardless: whether you're a textualist or realist, in the US you're still operating in a common law system.

It's the difference OP is referring to. You can be the judge of if it's relevant in the US to talk about civil law as the "norm" given that our legal system is not, in fact, based on civil law. I'm just providing a link to the concepts OP was referencing.

I don't think it is, because textualism is just one school (the other current school is legal realism) in the US system, which is common law. But I'm not sniping you, I'm just pursuing a nerdy angle here.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I was specifically referring to this line by OP:

> What American lawyers call "textualism" is how most continental european courts interpret written laws.

They were making a direct comparison between "textualism" and civil law, but didn't include the terms. I found the comparison interesting and thought I'd make it easier for anyone else who was confused by OP's comparison.

I realize on re-reading that this comparison is much less prominent than I thought it was in OP's comment, so it makes sense that my links would seem out of place. An explicit quote of that sentence would have helped.