It is the duty of the judge to interpret the law. For example: The meaning of the law originates with the writers of the law. Once the law is written, it has a concrete specific intended 'meaning' created by the law maker. Let's call this specific meaning, X. The job of the judge is to interpret the law. If the judge interprets that particular law, and comes up with a different meaning that is not 100% X, the judge has misinterpreted the law. Whether the judge from the local court or the supreme court, a judge that comes up with any meaning other than X has misinterpreted the law. The reason there are multiple members of the Supreme Court (currently 6) is to ensure the correct interpretation of the law. Therefore, there is not just one person to check and double check. There are 6 people which makes for closer interpretation. Their objective is to ensure that when the law is interpreted, they arrive at the correct specific meaning X which was the meaning that the law maker had intended for that law. Or as arrive to a meaning as close as possible to the original intended meaning. The mistake that people make is to assume that judges have the power to manipulate the meaning of the law. Judges to not create/change/or manipulate the meaning of the law. Interpretation is not the same thing. The three-branch system of America is specifically to set up to prevent this. The judicial branch has no power to adjust the law. The strictly are there to ensure the intentions of the legislation (not the judiciary) is carried out.
"Correct interpretation" .. "correct specific meaning".. "the intentions of the legislation" Why don't the damn legislators be the judges then? Exactly.
No, that's not true. And it's not true simply because of words are not specific enough for such a law. I.e., what does the word "true" mean? What does the word "murder" mean? What does the word "abuse" mean? Well, that's wrong, too. Judges interprete the law as I've noted above ...without that interpretation, trial attorneys would simply argue forever without resolution. Your "ideal" might be correct, but the application of that "ideal" is impossible. Baron Max
No. You're dead wrong, sorry. Yes, there is a high priority placed on divining the "original intent" of the framers of the legislation, going all the way back to the Constitution itself. You've probably already figured out from my choice of reference that determining "original intent" can be extremely difficult. Quick: How would the Founding Fathers want us to apply the First Amendment to use of the internet to distribute child pornography that was created entirely by computer graphics without the actual use of real humans? It's not that much easier to interpret laws that were written thirty years ago in the context of post-industrial civilization, even if the people who wrote those laws are still available to ask. People often change perspectives as they grow older--or simply get cagey a la Strom Thurmond--and will not give the same answer they would have when they were younger. Furthermore, the reason we call it the "justice system" is that to a certain extent it is by golly expected to dispense justice. Trial judges have only a limited authority to do this, but appellate judges have more latitude. Supreme Court justices are bloody EXPECTED to be wise and just, rather than simply scouring records to do a perfect computer-like simulation of What Thomas Jefferson Would Have Done. It is also their express duty to set aside the original intent of legislators if it turns out that their intent was to violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, these days that duty seems to have the lowest priority of all in all quarters of government, which is why we have a war on drugs, the overthrow of the government of a sovereign nation by U.S. troops, and federal subsidies to tobacco farmers. The Supreme Court is asleep at the switch. Ninety percent of the laws whose interpretation they debate are patently unconstitutional and should be simply nullified.
What are you talking about? What is your point, you said I was wrong, but back it up with nothing having to do with what I said. You are saying that meanings of words are subject to misinterpretation. Therefore, a lawmaker does not have an original specific intended meaning for the law they write. When judge interprets the law, he either interpreted correctly in congruence with what the lawmaker’s definitions. Or the judge interpreted incorrectly as in different from what the lawmaker’s definitions. Different words have different definitions, but it is the lawmaker’s intention and definition that the judge has the duty of applying. This has nothing to do with anything, and it is senseless. How is that relevant to what I'm saying? I am saying that there is an original intent. Difficult or not to interpret. The objective is to interpret and apply the correct law according to the case. Or be as accurate as possible in doing so. I agree that their job is to ensure that the laws do not violate the constitution. The point is, the law has a concrete and specific meaning. Judges cannot change the original meaning. They can only interpret it correctly or misinterpret it. The laws created hundreds of years ago do not take into consideration internet child porn and certain other phenomena. That is why the law is able to be updated and changed. When the law was written, it was made so that it could be adjusted and rewritten as the nation learns more and grows. The laws are not concrete in that sense that they can never be changed. But when it comes to interpretation, it is different. Interpretation does not change the law. The objective of the interpretation is to arrive at the original specific definitions that were intended for those words by the creators. This does not mean that the originator of the law has taken into consideration every situational. If no law applies to a particular situational, there are proper procedures for it. It is illegal to kill humans. It is illegal to kill fetuses. Then there are animal cruelty laws that define what ways an animal can legally be killed. But what about the aliens? If the aliens visit, all kinds of laws concerning killing them do not exist. Therefore, they have to be created according based on how they should be ethically treated whether they pose danger or are friendly.
Yes a judge's role is to interpret the law but that is about the only thing you've said that has been correct. There are different rules to interpretating the law and those different rules are often applied to different pieces of legislation. If the true meaning cannot be determined with the first rule, then the next rule is looked at and so on. It's not a mistake. Judges do have the power to manipulate the law and do so often. Their interpretation is a manipulation of the law. In a perfect world they wouldn't but we don't live in a perfect world now do we? Lets look at the Supreme Court. It is often called upon to determine whether the previous judge's interpretation of the law has gone beyond what was originally intended by the drafter's. The judge does not merely look at the actual written text of the legislation but also the drafts, etc when determining it's interpretation and in many instances, the Supreme Court will not overrule the decision of the appeal, even if it is construed as having altered the law itself via their decision. Err yes they do and sometimes their obiter dicta coupled with their decision will press the legislature to ammend said law. Their interpretation can also be seen to adjust the law by setting a precedent, which may then be followed by other judges. Cool Skill, I would suggest that you go to a library and borrow some books on legal interpretation. It might ermmm broaden your mind a tad as to how the courts interpret not just the legislation but also the precedents set by other or higher courts.
Wrong. I suggest you get a brain and a life. Go flame elsewhere. You have no idea what you are talking about as you have made clear here.
You know. Why even bother? This topic is actually somewhat interesting but I've refrained from posting because I suspected exactly how the 'conversation' would unroll. And I wasn't disappointed. Now. Insult my mother. Call me a retard. And carry on. (Hmmm. Maybe the proper course of action would just be to take his topic and discuss it amongst ourselves and ignore his... 'contributions'? Maybe later. It's too late at night to get into a detailed post.)
No. If only it were. As I said, I find the topic interesting but expected your responses to be exactly what they were. I find you to be incapable of discussion.
The only person incapable of discussion is a troll like yourself. You are too dumb to even know what we are discussing.
Am I? What is it that I'm wrong about CS? I did try to dumb it down for you as much as humanly possible... so explain what you think is wrong. Everyone who has posted in this forum is wrong according to you, why is that? Hmmm? I was merely trying to be helpful CS. Honestly. If you don't wish to discuss the topic then don't post it in the first place. If you expect everyone to say that you are right when you are not, again don't post the topic because people will not always agree with you. You are the only person flaming here so I'd suggest you get a grip on yourself. Really? Are you sure about that? Do you even know the law? Do you know the rules of interpretation? Do you know how and when they apply? Hell, did you even do legal studies in high school? Because to me it appears as though you have not. So I'd suggest that you get a clue as to what you are talking about and before you post items about anything, you gather some information by reading about the damn subject as a starting point.
Wow! What could have been, should have been, a fairly interesting topic is now nothing but personal insults and slander and unrelated bullshit! .....and all in the span of only a few posts. Pretty fuckin' amazing, huh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Ma
Troll. You have no intention of proper discussion. The only way you can feel good about yourself is by insulting others with meaningless posts such as this. Quite pathetic. What is your point? Oh you have none. TROLL. Irrelevant. You seriously have problems if you think this is in anyway related to the issue. It will never make you any less wrong so can the stupidity, and come with something relevant. I guess you are too illiterate to read you own posts. You flamed, I respond. You have no life because you only know how to start flaming and claim that I am the only one flaming. People like you are losers. An entire statement of WORTHLESS adhom that as usual proved nothing. You know nothing about facts. All you know how to do is attack/flame/ad-hom. You’re a moron.
No, it doesn't. It can't. Lawmakers cannot and should not predict every situation that the law might apply to. It would take years to craft even one law to take into account all applications, present and future, and even then would be incomplete. Words themselves are not concrete, their definition depends on the person listening and that person's internal dictionary.
Cook Skill, how do you see any of the responses as trolling? We all started out responding to your topic and you've taken it as personal attacks. The subject would/could have been okay, good even, but you've turned it into nothing but ....geez, whatever it is now!! If you think that we're all wrong, please try to respond to some of the points that were made. Try it, we might even come to like you ...tho' I don't know now after all the personal attacks on everyone. Baron Max
Well. Mine could be considered to be trollish. But, it was more a statement of disappointment, even though it was an expected disappointment. But it didn't add to the discussion at all. I'll admit that. But, even if I had, unless I agreed with Mr. Cool Skill there, all I would have got was the same response he gave to everyone else. Troll. Moron. Retard. Wrong. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Well, Invert, yes, that's true, but at least yours was later and in response to Cool Skill's tirade against anyone who didn't agree with his point of view. Murder/killing another human is wrong! ....ooops, is it wrong to kill a mad, violent, male rapist while he is in the act of violently raping and beating a 13-yr old girl who is crying and screaming for help? Hmmm, how to write a murder law so that it covers any and all possible situations? I wonder if Cool Skill can write a "concrete" law to cover it all? Baron Max The only people who do any real good is whore and bartenders!
You are a troll. Face it. You have no life. Wrong. Their definition depends on the intended definition of the speaker. Not the person listening.
Yes well I was labelled a troll and a flamer for disagreeing with CS and for suggesting he actually reads up on it in the first place.. and the only reason I suggested that is because legal interpretation is an interesting subject. I was even compilling a list of books he could look at and websites he could peruse if he was interested in the subject. If I attacked then I apologise. Now I guess I should just go and tell all my law lecturers who taught me, contact the publishers of the books I've read on legal interpretation and contact the first year law students I'd been lecturing and tutoring for nearly 2 years before the start of this year and tell them that it's all wrong because CS says 'law is concrete'.. Hell, I better start telling the judges they were wrong as well... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
