In the one camp are the defenders of the Oxford Comma. The other includes an unholy alliance of AP Style defenders, internet shorthanders that eschew almost any formality, and those lawyers who’s own use of the comma is erratic, at best.
So, recently a US court formalized the necessity of the Oxford comma in its verdict, to which I quipped back to an Oxford Comma supporting friend of mine this:
the win is absolutely contextual(;) considering the context of both comma usages(,) and the intent of the writers(,) and assumption of the readers(,) the actual verdict means very little(,) especially(,) in the truly legal end of things where the usage(,) and overall language is much more defined(,) in an area where linguists(,) and lawyers have never agreed(,) without accounting for plebeians(,) with whom neither agrees with(,) except(,) possibly out of convenience. Never mind(,) how lame it is for so-called linguists to rely on the courts who traditionally would err on the side of butchering language to preserve what the bench would call “average joe understanding.”