3 ms·

Keep in mind that there is an intelligent cut-out in the system: the judiciary. They exist because the law is not a computer program and because loopholes are n

Keep in mind that there is an intelligent cut-out in the system: the judiciary. They exist because the law is not a computer program and because loopholes are not like security flaws. In this case, the DoJ (officially) noticed the situation in August 2021, meaning the judiciary has not had time to work its magic. When they do so, they will evaluate a stack of arguments about the meaning and results of the law (in a non-computation sense of "evaluate" and "stack"); what they will not do is interpret the law like a series of if-then statements. At that point, legislators can then "patch" the law if they feel it necessary. (Do you realize exactly how bad "a quick security update to zero-day loopholes as they are found" would be?) (Knowing only the facts in the article, I would be willing to bet that some judge is going to say, "haha, yeah, good try, but no." But then I don't know all of the facts of the case.)

londons_explore 5y ago
Typically when a judge says no to a case like this, they have to come up with a definition of something in the law that is not met. For example, they may say "It does not qualify as travel on a railway if the load does not travel from one station to another station. In this case, since the loading and unloading occurred at the same station, this load did not travel by rail, and therefore the Jones Act was violated". That new decision then becomes part of the law (case law).