Lawmakers create Law X. Law X corresponds to meaning X. Law X => Meaning X. Meaning X is the specific original intended meaning of Law X as defined by the law maker. Therefore, meaning X is the correct meaning for Law X. Judge interprets Law X for Case A. There are 2 possible interpretations the judge may arrive at: 1. ‘Meaning X’ Or 2. ‘Not Meaning X’ If the judge comes up with an interpretation corresponding to #2, the judge has misinterpreted. [Speaker has a message that is concrete and specific. Speaker uses language to create a statement that expresses the message. Listener hears the statement, and interprets it. The interpretation of the statement is correct if it aligns with the speaker’s intended message.] A judge cannot create laws. Only set precedents which is not completely the same thing. Something is either legal, illegal, or undefined. Judges are not politicians. They do not represent any groups of people. A judges decision is solely based on what he believes is the correct interpretation. The objective of the judge is to apply the law as intended by the lawmaker. If the judge has interpreted the law in a manner inconsistent with the intended definition of the lawmaker, the judge has failed. The judge’s objective is not to redefine the law to suit a case. Wrong. This is completely absurd. THE DEFINITION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DEPEND ON THE LISTENER. The meaning behind any statement is defined as the indented message of the creator of the statement. Not the interpretation of the listener.