Lawyers are scum, example 745632

[HVC]

One more reason I could never be lawyer.

Not smart enough?



Funny, us Ukrainians are usually pretty damn smart...

you must know different Ukrainians then I know : P

[Gups]

I thought the purposive approach to statutory interpretation held sway in the States. If so, surely this is a pretty easy bit of interpretation.

[DontSayBanana]

I thought the purposive approach to statutory interpretation held sway in the States. If so, surely this is a pretty easy bit of interpretation.

It does, but even a strict constructionist not on Romney's legal team wouldn't normally try to make this argument.  The precedent would be disastrous, since Congress would spend even MORE time fighting on the proper wording, and all a plaintiff would have to do to invalidate quite a few laws would be to hire a language expert.

[Malthus]

I can't follow the argument without the full text, but if the prohibition is against spending money for "the purpose of influencing an election", why isn't it a good argument that spending money for some other purpose is okay? The fancy-dancy common law latin phrase is "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). That is, if you expressly state X is prohibited, only X is prohibited unless you make in clear in the statute that X is only an example of the sort of thing that is prohibited.

In any event, the article is silly. Use of simple words can often lead to ambiguous meanings, where clarity is required. I have a case like that right now. 

The issue is the test for approving a plant. The statute states the test as follows:

(3)  No permit shall be issued by the Director unless,
(a) in the opinion of the Director, the plant is necessary and desirable, having regard to the needs of the producers in the locality in which it is proposed to locate the plant and to the facilities of the existing plants in operation;

The question being - does the director have to have "regard" to the needs only of the producers, in the context established by the existing facilities, or does the director have to balance the interests of the producers against the interests of processors (who own the existing plants)? The "and too" seems to indicate the former.

Somewhat surprisingly, in previous administrative tribunal hearings the tribunals have all opted for the latter interpretation.

This makes a huge difference, as the owners of existing plants will of course always be negatively impacted by issuing a permit to a new competitor.

[CountDeMoney]

*sighs* Every word matters.

Yes, it does.  Legal battles are like dogfights, and every word can determine the initiative.

[PDH]

OUT OF THE SUN! OUT OF THE SUN!

[Eddie Teach]

I think we all know in terms of raw intelligence DG is way smarter than any lawyer here with the possible exception of Joan.  Math > application of rules and policy at best and bullshit at worst.

He has a lack of street smarts that is noteworthy even by Languish standards, however.

[DGuller]

I think we all know in terms of raw intelligence DG is way smarter than any lawyer here with the possible exception of Joan.  Math > application of rules and policy at best and bullshit at worst.

He has a lack of street smarts that is noteworthy even by Languish standards, however.

 

[Maximus]

Any ambiguity in language needs be resolved in favour of the accused.  I thought you, Tim, the big civil libertarian, would appreciate that principle.

(that is in fact a stupid rule of interpretation - a law means what it means)

This is why laws need to be replaced with computer code, so there is no ambiguity.