3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.