3 ms·
> It means a conclusion that a rational person would not reach. So "unreasonable" is a pretty strong safeguard. This is all nice in theory, but in practice, it
by tomp 10y ago
> It means a conclusion that a rational person would not reach. So "unreasonable" is a pretty strong safeguard.
This is all nice in theory, but in practice, it's happened multiple times that the (Supreme Court's) interpretation of the same law has changed. Granted, this has happened over decades (or even generations), but this implies that (1) either the definition of what is "reasonable" has changed (I find this unlikely, or else the concept itself has little sense), or (2) there is more wiggle room when interpreting laws...
- jdmichal 10y agoJudges are not infallible, and they are not isolated from the zeitgeist of their time. See Schenck v. United States, where the original ruling was overly broad and later refined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subsequent_jurisprudence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subse...
- rayiner 10y ago"Reasonable" just means that a conclusion follows logically from a set of accepted premises. That those premises may change over time does not render the concept of "reasonable" nonsensical, it just makes "reasonableness" a function of society's generally-accepted premises. That seems to me like a desirable property of legal systems, not an undesirable one.