3 ms·
Without judging the merits of this particular law, it's because conditions will be abused by the people who have the strongest incentive to game them. Laws are
by hyperpape 8y ago
Without judging the merits of this particular law, it's because conditions will be abused by the people who have the strongest incentive to game them.
Laws are like code in this way: simplicity is not always easy, or possible, given the constraints, but complexity has significant downsides.
- smhost 8y agoi mean if you say so. the supreme court does it, and it's not like they're some special breed of superhumans or something.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoYou are mixing two concepts here, perhaps unintentionally. The supreme court has a standards document against which it evaluates the laws (the constitution, whether it is state (SCOC) or country (SCOTUS)). I have not read a decision where they evaluate "what the legislature 'meant'" when they make their rulings, although they do sometimes comment on that.
- hyperpape 8y agoThe Supreme Court absolutely interprets the meaning of federal law passed by the legislature. Whether they do it by appeal to authorial intent or something else is a matter of jurisprudential philosophy. For an example of talking about what the legislators intended, see King v. Burwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell
- hyperpape 8y agoOur two main political parties constantly fight to appoint their preferred candidate to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were just following some apolitical procedure of interpretation, none of that would be necessary.
- fapjacks 8y ago"some apolitical procedure of interpretation" I'm down. But who gets to decide what's an apolitical procedure of interpretation? And what does that even look like?