Comments on: Judges Aren’t Supposed to “Interpret” the Law!

By: Recent URLs tagged Nitpicking - Urlrecorder

Recent URLs tagged Nitpicking - Urlrecorder — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:39:15 +0000

[...] Recent public urls tagged “nitpicking” → Judges Aren’t Supposed to “Interpret” the Law! [...]

By: Micah Tillman

Micah Tillman — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:55:18 +0000

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.

By: Micah Tillman

Micah Tillman — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:52:50 +0000

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?

By: jeffsdeepthoughts

jeffsdeepthoughts — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:38:52 +0000

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”

By: Micah Tillman

Micah Tillman — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:13:24 +0000

*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.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:22:29 +0000

Have you ever looked at an actual piece of legislation? I think the term interpret might be quite apt…