3 ms·

The judge took those definitions from other parts of the law. An interpretation should not result in an absurd conclusion. If so, your interpretation is wrong.

The judge took those definitions from other parts of the law. An interpretation should not result in an absurd conclusion. If so, your interpretation is wrong. Here's what the judge should have said. "In this part of the law, 'invertebrate' refers to a fish. In other parts of the law, 'invertebrate' refers to terrestrial animals. Obviously, the legislature did not mean to include terrestrial animals as fish. Therefore, a bee is not a fish".

tptacek 4y ago
Obviously, the legislature intended exactly that, as the decision explains. The dispute here is about whether California has the authority to designate bees as endangered species, not whether it has the authority to regulate fisheries with respect to bees. In October 2018, the public interest groups petitioned the Commission to list four species of bumble bee as endangered species: the Crotch bumble bee, the Franklin bumble bee, the Suckley cuckoo bumble bee, and the Western bumble bee (collectively the four bumble bee species) [... 2 grafs ...] In September 2019, petitioners challenged the Commission’s decision by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the trial court. Petitioners asserted the Commission’s determination that the four bumble bee species qualify for listing as candidate species under the Act “violated the Commission’s legal duty, was a clear legal error, and was an abuse of discretion.” There's a bunch of problems with the argument that California can't legally designate bugs as endangered species, one of which is that the act was amended specifically to protect endangered butterflies in the first place, the other of which is that it would be an insane result. It's an easy opinion to read. You can just get this from the document linked on the thread. It's all right there.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The judge took those definitions from other parts of the law. No, the judge took examples from other areas of the law as evidence against the argument that the Legislature could not have intended what the plain language of the definition in the section of the law in dispute directly says. The definition was not taken from a different section of law, only evidence against the effort to reinterpret the definition in a narrower way than it's plain language suggests.

tptacek 4y ago

Obviously, the legislature intended exactly that, as the decision explains. The dispute here is about whether California has the authority to designate bees as endangered species, not whether it has the authority to regulate fisheries with respect to bees. In October 2018, the public interest groups petitioned the Commission to list four species of bumble bee as endangered species: the Crotch bumble bee, the Franklin bumble bee, the Suckley cuckoo bumble bee, and the Western bumble bee (collectively the four bumble bee species) [... 2 grafs ...] In September 2019, petitioners challenged the Commission’s decision by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the trial court. Petitioners asserted the Commission’s determination that the four bumble bee species qualify for listing as candidate species under the Act “violated the Commission’s legal duty, was a clear legal error, and was an abuse of discretion.” There's a bunch of problems with the argument that California can't legally designate bugs as endangered species, one of which is that the act was amended specifically to protect endangered butterflies in the first place, the other of which is that it would be an insane result. It's an easy opinion to read. You can just get this from the document linked on the thread. It's all right there.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The judge took those definitions from other parts of the law. No, the judge took examples from other areas of the law as evidence against the argument that the Legislature could not have intended what the plain language of the definition in the section of the law in dispute directly says. The definition was not taken from a different section of law, only evidence against the effort to reinterpret the definition in a narrower way than it's plain language suggests.