3 ms·
Determining legislation's intent is a core function of every appellate court.
by HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
Determining legislation's intent is a core function of every appellate court.
- giantg2 3y agoYeah, but you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit. There are precedents supporting that so that laws don't violate strict construction and lenity. That's doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I've seen laws that explicitly call out "reasonable" in them and the courts decide to apply strict liability instead of a reasonable standard, just to make their job easier (increase convictions).
- tiahura 3y agoI was in court on a giant mixed docket with name changes to murder indictments. One of the cases was a paternity action involving the state’s new paternity statute. There was argument over how to interpret the statute and one of the attorneys tried buffaloing the judge with “Well actually judge, I’m on the committee that drafted the bill and our intent,” The judge cut him off and retorted that he didn’t care what anyone intended, he was going to go by what the statute actually said. I made a mental note to never argue legislative intent in that court.
- singleshot_ 3y agoThe judge did not care what the lawyer had to say because it is improper for a lawyer to testify.
- tiahura 3y agoHe wasn’t testifying, he was arguing. If wasn’t an evidentiary hearing.
- freejazz 3y agoAnd he has no place to state the intent of the committee based upon his own experiences, because it's not an evidentiary hearing
- singleshot_ 3y agoIf it was not an evidentiary hearing, then there were two reasons the attorney’s testimony was disallowed.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoHe’s dismissing someone’s anecdote of what the intent of the law was. Do you not see the difference?