3 ms·
I swear I don't mean this in a snarky way: I don't quite understand how, functionally, interpreting the law is all that different from creating it. Deciding to
by thatswrong0 3y ago
I swear I don't mean this in a snarky way: I don't quite understand how, functionally, interpreting the law is all that different from creating it. Deciding to interpret a law one way or the other (because of the ambiguity of language and intent behind laws) has impacts on people's lives, the freedoms they have, what rules they are subject to, etc.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoIt's not, and in a lot of ways is more powerful
- anitil 3y agoPeople argue this point a lot. As an example, Miranda rights are an affirmative requirement - that is legislating from the bench, but people like it so don't complain. I'd highly recommend a podcast called 'Five Four' where they talk about the supreme court as a political body, rather than as the impartial "balls and strikes" role that if purports to be.
- hsn915 3y agoYou can certainly create legislation while pretending you are just interpreting text. Roe vs Wade is an excellent example of this. Which is why finally getting rid of it was a good thing.