You’re looking for logical consistency where there isn’t any. It’s all made up.

There is no one right or wrong way to interpret law. For every canon of statutory construction, there is an equal and opposite canon. My textbook called them thrusts and parries.

Conservatives believe in a plain meaning approach: follow the literal text no matter what because the cold hard text is the best evidence of the legislative intent. If the result is obviously absurd and offensive to justice, too bad, it’s the legislature’s job to fix the statute, not the court’s. Conservatives hate they idea of any power to do affirmative justice resting with the courts, they want it in Congress where their rich benefactors and buy congresspersons.

The problem with that is that legislatures are messy and words are imprecise. The words represent individual understandings and compromises of single members and caucuses, not the whole body. Even when Conservatives say they are following the original text / plain meaning, they are still doing subjective interpretation, just without admitting it.

Purposivism is the idea that statutes should be interpreted and applied by courts with reference to the purpose of the law and common sense.