3 ms·
>Motives matter Judicial interpretation generally takes the opposite tack, reading law according to its "plain meaning" rather than an imagined/assumed intent,
by cookiecaper 10y ago
>Motives matter
Judicial interpretation generally takes the opposite tack, reading law according to its "plain meaning" rather than an imagined/assumed intent, to prevent just such bias and editorialization as you're displaying here (which, obviously, can be extremely damaging when mingled with governance).
Impute whatever intentions you wish on your favorite boogeymen, it doesn't change the text of the law under which Americans are governed.
- matt4077 10y agoJudicial interpretation is generally is embroiled in a partisan fight over originalism vs. substantive/contextual/... canons. The most recent case of the Supreme Court rejecting "plain meaning" was Obamacare, where it was decided that "State" in "an Exchange established by the State" also includes those established by the federal government. But I doubt you'll even need to show that the EO started with the wish to implement a Muslim Ban, because it is doubtful that their efforts to soften it until it is legal were successful. As an analogy: Would a company policy never to employ a woman born in odd-numbered years be discriminatory? If you insist on "no, because it doesn't discriminate against all women", how about a policy against hiring any women who's current age is even? That must then also be non-discriminatory, right? Now what if a company were to implement both policies? Can two non-discriminatory policies add up to something discriminatory?