4 ms·
> the context in which something was written should be taken into consideration Yes surely if we want to understand what they meant when they wrote their opini
by galaxyLogic 12y ago
> the context in which something was written should be taken into consideration
Yes surely if we want to understand what they meant when they wrote their opinions. But those were just their opinions. They were not the law that was passed. A law is not an opinion. What is it? It is a text. Who interprets it? The Judges.
For a judge to say: "I rule this way because I think this is what Jefferson wanted" is a cop-out. It would be more honest for them to say: "I rule the law this way because I'm the one who interprets the law here".
- sjwright 12y agoYour argument is that law should be treated like a clean-room implementation with zero original context. The original interpretation is apparently meaningless. But interpretations by random judges are fine? And it's appropriate for these random decisions to become precedent? I've never understood this mindset. It's treating the English language like machine code, as if it could be written with a degree of deterministic certainty. Our human language is littered with reasonable unwritten assumptions, words that slowly evolve, words that completely change meaning. If we happen to know what the original authors of the bill meant with their words, why should we substitute their known interpretation with that of some random judge? Is the American system really suffering from too much Jeffersonian-ism? I'd argue the opposite.
- Tloewald 12y agoHilariously, this is the rival school of thought in literary criticism. The author's intent doesn't matter.