4 ms·
Feels weird that a law can apply to too much & be damaging to society to such a degree that the judicial arm of government just agrees it'd be awful to enforce
by rektide 4y ago
Feels weird that a law can apply to too much & be damaging to society to such a degree that the judicial arm of government just agrees it'd be awful to enforce the law & declares that they dont intend to.
- DannyBee 4y agoIt is often not possible or desirable to have laws that are so complete and exhaustive that they require 0 interpretation. Laws, like most thing, are designed to try to balance flexibility and clarity where necessary. Otherwise, they are mostly worthless, or become worthless very quickly. (and no, you can't just make them super explicit and constantly update them, it's completely intractable) As a result, pieces of government offering guidance/manuals for their enforcement is very common. This is true both criminally and civilly. For example, the USPTO maintains the "manual of patent examining procedure" that somewhat exhaustively interprets patent law.
- duxup 4y agoSCOTUS already shrunk the scope of some laws (I think it was the CFAA) where they disagreed that simply violating a local policy about computer usage === CFAA. I think this is a slow but natural process to narrowing it down.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fnordpiglet 4y agoNote this is the executive branch not the judicial. Sadly laws are so hard to legislate now this is how fixes are often being done - piece meal, weakly, and subject to random changes by political whim.
- YesThatTom2 4y agoThat’s how law works.
- dragonwriter 4y agoThe US Department of Justice is not the judicial arm of government, but the executive.
- pitaj 4y agoIt's one of the many checks and balances we have available.
- mattnewton 4y agoChecks and balances. It's not great but it is a way around the current legislature which has become increasingly paralyzed by partisanship.