5 ms·

All details of laws are "technicalities." They matter. The Legislature is the body to address the gap, not the court.

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• tptacek 4y ago
  They did, when they explicitly defined "fish" to include bumble bees. You're the one asking the court to find meaning not present in the letter of the law.
• colinmhayes 4y ago
  > The Legislature is the body to address the gap, not the court. They did, by changing the definition of fish to include all invertebrates.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• MAGZine 4y ago
  The legislature did address the gap. The legal text, as passed by the legislature, defines fish (within the context of the document) to include invertebrates. They could have called "fish," anything in this case. They could have called fish, apples. Doesn't make a difference. It couldn't be clearer. ignoring the text of the law and then declaring the court to have not done its job is ridiculous. In fact, if the court IGNORED the text of the law, I'd think that they'd be more open to a "legistlating from the bench," critique. For example, many traffic laws refer to roadways as highways, even if e.g. it is a driveway or a backalley.
• D13Fd 4y ago
  As the Court sees it, there is no "gap." The legislature defined fish to include terrestrial invertebrates, including discussing one specifically (a snail). The Court has to do something to resolve the issue. Either the legislature meant to include some but not all terrestrial invertebrates (e.g. snails but not bugs), or they included all (snails and bugs). The court went with the literal meaning of what the legislature wrote rather than drawing arbitrary lines without support. What would you have them do instead?
• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The Legislature is the body to address the gap, not the court. They did. They said that “fish” includes, among other things, any inverterbrate. The people challenging the executive action authorized by the legislature with this language wanted the court to declare that “any invertebrate” in the law does not include bees. But the courts are the wrong place for this: if they think the executive branch should not have regulatory authority over bees which the legislature has granted it over all invertebrates, they should take this to the legislature (or the people, acting via the power of initiative) to alter the grant of authority.
  • tyrfing 4y ago
    > They did. They said that “fish” includes, among other things, any inverterbrate. This is incorrect. It includes "invertebrates", not "any invertebrates". The question is whether a bumblebee is as much of a "fish" as a mollusk.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      That is not in fact the question. The headline of this story asks you to believe it's the question, but the real story is much more boring than that, which you'll easily see by reading the actual decision. No, in fact, the word "invertebrates" was chosen specifically to include several endangered terrestrial invertebrates.
      • tyrfing 4y ago
        > We certainly agree section 45 is ambiguous as to whether the Legislature intended for the definition of fish to apply to purely aquatic species. There's 9 pages of analysis on the scope. Changing "invertebrate" to "any invertebrate" clearly begs the question.
        • tptacek 4y ago
          No, it doesn't.