We live in a system that considers both the text of a law and the Judicial precedent surrounding that law. The Judicial branch interprets law, and issues binding statements based on that interpretation multiple times per day every single day. For a recent example, search for "The state asked the court to employ a remedy in this situation" in [0] and read on until the end of the paragraph.
Notice that this remedy is something that courts are supposed to do whenever they can. Moreover, history is littered with creative interpretations of law. Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most well-known.
>The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd.
Heh. You really need to spend a month or two and read all the level-headed accounts you can find of the role that staffers and lobbyists play in Congress.
I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that when you learn how the sausage is made these days, you'll change some of your more objectionable opinions.
You're just proving my point here. Wickard was a bad ruling which should have resulted some sort of correction (either impeachment or a change in the law)
I know how laws are made, that's why I want to make sure information gets to the people who need it to make good decisions. They may ignore that information, but at least they'll have it.
If you knew about Wickard -and rulings like it-, then you knew that judges frequently interpret and -through the act of interpretation- shape law. Because you knew this, you also knew that your statement "Judges do not make law." was a falsehood.
Like it or not, we live with a Judicial system that considers both the text of a law and the court precedent relating to that law.
We've been living in this system since the founding of the Republic. We have always had the system that you say we shouldn't, and we will very likely continue to have it until the day that the Republic has vanished from the earth.
Honestly, you might be happier in one of those European countries that give their courts zero room for interpretation. :)
We live in a system that considers both the text of a law and the Judicial precedent surrounding that law. The Judicial branch interprets law, and issues binding statements based on that interpretation multiple times per day every single day. For a recent example, search for "The state asked the court to employ a remedy in this situation" in [0] and read on until the end of the paragraph.
Notice that this remedy is something that courts are supposed to do whenever they can. Moreover, history is littered with creative interpretations of law. Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most well-known.
>The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd.
Heh. You really need to spend a month or two and read all the level-headed accounts you can find of the role that staffers and lobbyists play in Congress.
I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that when you learn how the sausage is made these days, you'll change some of your more objectionable opinions.
[0] http://popehat.com/2015/05/27/minnesota-court-rules-that-cri...