> My interpretation--and the SCt's--is to be preferred because we have
the
> better argument. You don't actually dispute this. I reject the
proposition
> that disagreement means that there is automatically an open
question. I am
> not a relativist. --jks
In reply to:
JM
> >Why in the world should anyone prefer your interpretation of what
> >Congress said to that of the 9th Circuit panel?
Further:
We in the judicial branch just interpret what
> > Congress says.
>
>And interpret if the law is Constitutional, no?
Not often. It doesn't come up very much. In three years, and hundreds of cases, I have encountered two constitutional challenges to laws, one winner, one loser.
>
> > I can't go to the judge and say, hey, judge! I have a great
> > idea to reduce human suffering. Let me write it up, and you issue
the
> > opinion!
>
>Someone I thought that is what the MPAA and the RIAA did when they
got
>their IP rulings. "Hey judge, this technology threatens my bottom
line,
>we've written up an opinion, so issue it."
>
>But then I'm a cynic.
Right, but there is a difference. If a plaintiff thinks that the conduct of the defendant _illegally_ threatens its profits, it can sue, that is, ask us to tell them to stop. We may only tell them to do that if their conduct is in fact illegal. IP laws and many others are designed to protect profits. You can therefore direct cynicism at the legislature. If--as sometimes happens, too often, really--judges bend laws that are supposed to protect the public or employees to protect profit instead, you can be outraged, but only if you think that what they should be doing is interpreting the law, even if they disagree with it. --jks ===============
Isn't the problem with your [Justin's] non-relativism due precisely to the surplus meanings of congressional intent[s]? Doesn't this preclude holding steadfast to a non-relativist take on adjudication? It seems judges run into Wittgenstein's claims on rule following, no?
Ian