Judges Aren’t Supposed to “Interpret” the Law!
Jun 18th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 6 Comments |
Just heard a clip of Reagan saying that judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it.
Now, we agree on the latter. Legislators are the ones who are supposed to legislate.
But judges are supposed to judge, not interpret. (Where in the world does the “interpretation” talk come from?*) The judge’s job is to decide (or help jurors decide) whether a person has or hasn’t broken a law.
_____________________
People in the legislature make the law. People in the executive capture people they think are breaking the law. People in the judicial branch decide whether the people who were captured by people in the executive branch have, in fact, broken the law and need to be punished.
If the people in the judicial branch decide the people captured by the people in the executive branch have in fact broken the law, then they tell the people in the executive branch how to punish said lawbreakers. And then the people in the executive branch punish the lawbreakers accordingly.
It’s not that complicated.
__________________
*Interpreters take a written or spoken expression in one language and design an expression in another language which has the same meaning. The paradigm of interpretation is translation.
Interpretation, however, has a wider scope, since it can also include taking an expression in one language and designing another expression in the same language which has the same meaning.
Have you ever looked at an actual piece of legislation? I think the term interpret might be quite apt…
*grin* Yeah.
Well, no, I haven’t actually looked at a piece of legislation. But I hear things.
Not from people whom I know and who have actually seen legislation, but from reporters whom I don’t know and who might have.
I don’t know the context of Reagan’s quote…
But at the bare minimum, it seems like the judiciary has to interpret the constitution, not just judge.
Even if you believe in the possibility that we can reconstruct the intentions of the framers, deciding whether or not a law conflicts with these intentions certainly strikes me as a task worthy of the term “interpret”
Good point. When a judge is called on to judge a law, the situation does seem to be one of comparing meanings. And trying to make sure that the meaning of one expression matches (or is at least not in conflict with) the meaning of another, does seem to be a job for interpreters.
Here’s the question though: when did judges start judging laws in addition to judging people?
PS
But still, the interpreter’s job is to generate a new expression which has the same meaning as an old expression. When a judge is called on to judge a law, there’s no generation happening. It’s a simple comparison of meanings, rather than an attempt to reinstantiate a meaning in a new expression.
[...] Recent public urls tagged “nitpicking” → Judges Aren’t Supposed to “Interpret” the Law! [...]