6 ms·

That's fine with me. I suppose if other arthropods are already legally classified as fish then it's not much of a leap. Not sure what impact bees have on aquat

That's fine with me. I suppose if other arthropods are already legally classified as fish then it's not much of a leap. Not sure what impact bees have on aquatic ecosystems though - I was able to google something about potential pollination of a few aquatic plants - but that seems very minimal. The terrestrial mollusk they mention, the Trinity Bristle Snail [1] is found along river ecosystems and would presumably have more of an impact on those aquatic ecosystems. But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_bristle_snail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_bristle_snail

giantg2 4y ago
"But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea." Or the legislature could do their jobs and craft appropriate legislation.
- fdr 4y ago
  they did, but in a way rather odd, where they have a remark in the law that "fish" are a shorthand for, among other things, invertebrates. I wonder if such a drafting choice would be made today, in the presence of the modern word processor.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I believe that was in the context of aquarically associated invertebrates, right?
    - tptacek 4y ago
      They specifically did not do that. The court tracked down the origin of this change in the definition of the law, and the legislature at the time was acting in part to preserve an endangered terrestrial snail. If they'd meant "aquatic invertebrates", that's what they'd have said.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        They already stated that the snail was a mollusk. It still seems you're ignoring the context of the fact that they added invertebrates under the fish heading, while they added other classes (plants) under their own headings. That context seems to indicate aquatic relation. Perhaps it was just them being lazy, but it would have been more proper to have it as it's own classification as was done for plants. This whole thing would have been unnecessary if they were good at being lazy and said they had the power to regulate species without making all these classifications.
        tptacek 4y ago
        This snail is a terrestrial mollusk, so that doesn't help you. But even if it did: the legislature was also trying to protect 3 different butterflies along with the snail. I don't think there's a way to weasel out of this.
- vkou 4y ago
  If they don't like this ruling, the legislators are free to draft legislature to clarify and correct it. As you describe, they can do their jobs. If they don't, we have to assume that they are fine with this interpretation. It's a common misconception among American technologists that law is some kind of code that you can deterministically, and unambiguously execute on a VM, and come up with the same result every single time. If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, you could try moving to a Civil Law country. You have a lot of options in this case - most of the world runs on Civil Law. In the boundless wisdom of the founding father, America forked its legal system from the United Kingdom, and is therefore a Common Law nation, where courts can routinely interpret legislature as they see fit, and set binding precedent when they do so.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "If they don't, we have to assume that they are fine with this interpretation." That method of operation leaves it open to future disputes. It's better to have a well defined law that doesn't rely on interpretation as those interpretations change over time. Not to mention, this interpretation should never have occurred to begin with. It's a concept in law that you cannot ignore or contradict the wording of a law to pursue its spirit. This clearly defines "fish" in such a way that it is inconsistent with the text. That one also must use the definitions defined in the law, defined in similar laws, or defined in the dictionary. Which this meets none of those. "It's a common misconception among American technologists that law is some kind of code that you can deterministically, and unambiguously execute on a VM, and come up with the same result every single time." That is the goal - that the law is defined in a way to produce consistent results and is applied equally. That's why we have rules of procedure, follow precedent, etc.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > That method of operation leaves it open to future disputes. That method of operation is precisely how the legislature and the judiciary in this country works. Based on a decision made ~250 years ago. When a law is open-ended, the judiciary clarifies it. If the legislature doesn't like this clarification, it passes a new law. If the legislature includes a contradiction to the clarification in the new law, the courts take this into account as a strong indicator of how the law should be interpreted in the future. > It's better to have a well defined law that doesn't rely on interpretation as those interpretations change over time. If you believe this strongly enough, you should consider moving to a Civil Law nation, where the process I described does not happen. This is a Common Law nation, that is built on this process. > That is the goal - that the law is defined in a way to produce consistent results and is applied equally. This goal, like a spherical cow, is impossible to meet. In practice, ambiguities and uncertainties always exist, and every country's political system has a process for resolving it. This country's process is a push-and-pull between the judiciary and the legislature.
wins32767 4y ago
> But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea. If the legislature did a bad job drafting the law, the courts shouldn't just say "well, bees are important". Reject it and make the legislature pass a better law if they want to protect bees. Otherwise it's not rule of law, it's rule of courts.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If the legislature did a bad job drafting the law, the courts shouldn't just say "well, bees are important" They didn't just say bees are important, nor did they find that the legislature did a bad job drafting the law (which, in general, is not their job—qualitative assessment of legislative output and correction—either direct via initiative/referendum or indirect by replacing legislators—as necessary is the job of the electorate, not the judiciary, in California.) The court said that the law as written explicitly says that ‘fish’, for the purpose of the grant of power in the law, includes, among other things, all invertebrates, and the historical evidence is consistent with that meaning exactly what it says, including terrestrial invertebrates, so the executive branch agency acting under power granted by the law with respect to ‘fish’ is correct in applying that power to bees, which are within the scope of the law’s explicit grant of authority. If the people of the State disagree with the law granting power in this way they have the tools to correct it, and it's not the courts job.
- vkou 4y ago
  The legislature drafted the law to explicitly include all sorts of non-fish things under the term 'fish'. The whole purpose of courts is to deal with ambiguities like this. If you don't like the court ruling, ask your legislators to amend the law. Legislators legislate, courts interpret, legislators can clarify if they don't like the interpretation. Sounds like the Rule of Common Law to me.
- Spivak 4y ago
  What you’re describing is basically the split between “liberal/conservative” (separate from the political usage) interpretations of law. Liberal justices don’t see themselves legislating from the bench but interpreting law as Do What I Mean instead of Do What I Say. At any point the legislature is still allowed to correct the record and override the court’s interpretation by making their position explicit.
gretch 4y ago
> But if a loophole is needed to protect the [children] then it's probably a good idea. Nope this is a fast track to bad outcomes.
robonerd 4y ago
All leads back to the sea eventually.

giantg2 4y ago

"But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea." Or the legislature could do their jobs and craft appropriate legislation.

fdr 4y ago
they did, but in a way rather odd, where they have a remark in the law that "fish" are a shorthand for, among other things, invertebrates. I wonder if such a drafting choice would be made today, in the presence of the modern word processor.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I believe that was in the context of aquarically associated invertebrates, right?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    They specifically did not do that. The court tracked down the origin of this change in the definition of the law, and the legislature at the time was acting in part to preserve an endangered terrestrial snail. If they'd meant "aquatic invertebrates", that's what they'd have said.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      They already stated that the snail was a mollusk. It still seems you're ignoring the context of the fact that they added invertebrates under the fish heading, while they added other classes (plants) under their own headings. That context seems to indicate aquatic relation. Perhaps it was just them being lazy, but it would have been more proper to have it as it's own classification as was done for plants. This whole thing would have been unnecessary if they were good at being lazy and said they had the power to regulate species without making all these classifications.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        This snail is a terrestrial mollusk, so that doesn't help you. But even if it did: the legislature was also trying to protect 3 different butterflies along with the snail. I don't think there's a way to weasel out of this.
vkou 4y ago
If they don't like this ruling, the legislators are free to draft legislature to clarify and correct it. As you describe, they can do their jobs. If they don't, we have to assume that they are fine with this interpretation. It's a common misconception among American technologists that law is some kind of code that you can deterministically, and unambiguously execute on a VM, and come up with the same result every single time. If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, you could try moving to a Civil Law country. You have a lot of options in this case - most of the world runs on Civil Law. In the boundless wisdom of the founding father, America forked its legal system from the United Kingdom, and is therefore a Common Law nation, where courts can routinely interpret legislature as they see fit, and set binding precedent when they do so.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "If they don't, we have to assume that they are fine with this interpretation." That method of operation leaves it open to future disputes. It's better to have a well defined law that doesn't rely on interpretation as those interpretations change over time. Not to mention, this interpretation should never have occurred to begin with. It's a concept in law that you cannot ignore or contradict the wording of a law to pursue its spirit. This clearly defines "fish" in such a way that it is inconsistent with the text. That one also must use the definitions defined in the law, defined in similar laws, or defined in the dictionary. Which this meets none of those. "It's a common misconception among American technologists that law is some kind of code that you can deterministically, and unambiguously execute on a VM, and come up with the same result every single time." That is the goal - that the law is defined in a way to produce consistent results and is applied equally. That's why we have rules of procedure, follow precedent, etc.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > That method of operation leaves it open to future disputes. That method of operation is precisely how the legislature and the judiciary in this country works. Based on a decision made ~250 years ago. When a law is open-ended, the judiciary clarifies it. If the legislature doesn't like this clarification, it passes a new law. If the legislature includes a contradiction to the clarification in the new law, the courts take this into account as a strong indicator of how the law should be interpreted in the future. > It's better to have a well defined law that doesn't rely on interpretation as those interpretations change over time. If you believe this strongly enough, you should consider moving to a Civil Law nation, where the process I described does not happen. This is a Common Law nation, that is built on this process. > That is the goal - that the law is defined in a way to produce consistent results and is applied equally. This goal, like a spherical cow, is impossible to meet. In practice, ambiguities and uncertainties always exist, and every country's political system has a process for resolving it. This country's process is a push-and-pull between the judiciary and the legislature.

wins32767 4y ago

> But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea. If the legislature did a bad job drafting the law, the courts shouldn't just say "well, bees are important". Reject it and make the legislature pass a better law if they want to protect bees. Otherwise it's not rule of law, it's rule of courts.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> If the legislature did a bad job drafting the law, the courts shouldn't just say "well, bees are important" They didn't just say bees are important, nor did they find that the legislature did a bad job drafting the law (which, in general, is not their job—qualitative assessment of legislative output and correction—either direct via initiative/referendum or indirect by replacing legislators—as necessary is the job of the electorate, not the judiciary, in California.) The court said that the law as written explicitly says that ‘fish’, for the purpose of the grant of power in the law, includes, among other things, all invertebrates, and the historical evidence is consistent with that meaning exactly what it says, including terrestrial invertebrates, so the executive branch agency acting under power granted by the law with respect to ‘fish’ is correct in applying that power to bees, which are within the scope of the law’s explicit grant of authority. If the people of the State disagree with the law granting power in this way they have the tools to correct it, and it's not the courts job.
vkou 4y ago
The legislature drafted the law to explicitly include all sorts of non-fish things under the term 'fish'. The whole purpose of courts is to deal with ambiguities like this. If you don't like the court ruling, ask your legislators to amend the law. Legislators legislate, courts interpret, legislators can clarify if they don't like the interpretation. Sounds like the Rule of Common Law to me.
Spivak 4y ago
What you’re describing is basically the split between “liberal/conservative” (separate from the political usage) interpretations of law. Liberal justices don’t see themselves legislating from the bench but interpreting law as Do What I Mean instead of Do What I Say. At any point the legislature is still allowed to correct the record and override the court’s interpretation by making their position explicit.

gretch 4y ago

> But if a loophole is needed to protect the [children] then it's probably a good idea. Nope this is a fast track to bad outcomes.

robonerd 4y ago

All leads back to the sea eventually.