5 ms·

The way it is written, it suggests that they're not allowed to have all 3 simultaneously. not (A and B and C) But then if you think about it in context, that

The way it is written, it suggests that they're not allowed to have all 3 simultaneously. not (A and B and C) But then if you think about it in context, that law would make little to no sense. So likely they intended "or". I have no idea how this works in the US, but here judges are told to follow the intention of the law and not the precise text. You wouldn't get out because someone made a grammar error.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
Legislative intent matters in the US, but we have some schools of legal thought that are pretty skeptical of it, so it's not always the end-all. (The concern being, every time a court uses legislative intent to disregard the statutory text, it becomes a little bit harder for someone to understand what the laws that govern them are.)
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Considering the number of "Originalists" on the court, you would think it is well established. Or is that just for the SC where judges have more latitude in getting the verdict they want?
Eggsellence 3y ago
[flagged]
- mjburgess 3y ago
  I suspect it has more to do with the imprisoning of people for drug offences, non-violent crime, and the background of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra... I also suspect the judiciary is not happy with 'mandatory minimums' which ties their hands, and make them pawns in this larger mass incarceration project
deadbeeves 3y ago
The thing is, almost every time when people put negative conditions (that you must not meet in order to qualify for something else) every condition is disqualifying, and that idea is expressed with "or". Which of these sounds more natural to you? "You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, and bacon." "You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, or bacon." To me the second one sounds more natural. The first one sounds very unusual. I can have pie only on the condition that I don't have all three things? Okay... It sounds so strange because no one ever says that. I can't see someone using "and" there if they didn't mean it, because it's such an unusual grammatical construction.
- thehappypm 3y ago
  The first case makes sense to me. These both are perfectly valid but mean different things: You can call me for a ride if you are drunk and there are no taxis available. You can call me for a ride if you are drunk or there are no taxis available.
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    Note that I didn't say that either didn't make sense or was grammatically incorrect, just that it sounds very strange. I don't think your examples are that great, since you're listing requirements that "you" must meet to call for a ride, not things that disqualify "you" from calling for a ride. Also, using both "and" and "or" with lists of two items is common. Both "don't drink and drive" and "don't drink or drive" are plausible pieces of advice. "Twelve hours prior to the surgery don't drink, eat, and take any medicine" would be a very strange indication; it almost sounds like I'm being not to drink or eat, but to take any medicine of my choosing?

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago

Legislative intent matters in the US, but we have some schools of legal thought that are pretty skeptical of it, so it's not always the end-all. (The concern being, every time a court uses legislative intent to disregard the statutory text, it becomes a little bit harder for someone to understand what the laws that govern them are.)

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Considering the number of "Originalists" on the court, you would think it is well established. Or is that just for the SC where judges have more latitude in getting the verdict they want?

Eggsellence 3y ago

[flagged]

mjburgess 3y ago
I suspect it has more to do with the imprisoning of people for drug offences, non-violent crime, and the background of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra... I also suspect the judiciary is not happy with 'mandatory minimums' which ties their hands, and make them pawns in this larger mass incarceration project

deadbeeves 3y ago

The thing is, almost every time when people put negative conditions (that you must not meet in order to qualify for something else) every condition is disqualifying, and that idea is expressed with "or". Which of these sounds more natural to you? "You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, and bacon." "You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, or bacon." To me the second one sounds more natural. The first one sounds very unusual. I can have pie only on the condition that I don't have all three things? Okay... It sounds so strange because no one ever says that. I can't see someone using "and" there if they didn't mean it, because it's such an unusual grammatical construction.

thehappypm 3y ago
The first case makes sense to me. These both are perfectly valid but mean different things: You can call me for a ride if you are drunk and there are no taxis available. You can call me for a ride if you are drunk or there are no taxis available.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  Note that I didn't say that either didn't make sense or was grammatically incorrect, just that it sounds very strange. I don't think your examples are that great, since you're listing requirements that "you" must meet to call for a ride, not things that disqualify "you" from calling for a ride. Also, using both "and" and "or" with lists of two items is common. Both "don't drink and drive" and "don't drink or drive" are plausible pieces of advice. "Twelve hours prior to the surgery don't drink, eat, and take any medicine" would be a very strange indication; it almost sounds like I'm being not to drink or eat, but to take any medicine of my choosing?