Lawyers love ambiguity. They can turn any term into a debate. President Clinton made the famous defense that depended on "what the meaning of is is." We see this played out over and over, but the most famous example right now is the temporary ban on immigrants from 7 listed countries.
I've seen and read news coverage, but until I saw this article, I didn't know President Trump had actually read the statute in an important meeting, covered by all the media. The media forgot to tell us the President read the statute.
http://www.infowars.com/trump-rips-leftists-judges-after-disgraceful-hearing-we-are-at-risk/
The Seattle District Judge apparently didn't even address the statute.
When the courts embark on imaginary interpretation of plain language, there really is no law; everything is up to the individual preferences of the judges hearing the cases.
I've seen and read news coverage, but until I saw this article, I didn't know President Trump had actually read the statute in an important meeting, covered by all the media. The media forgot to tell us the President read the statute.
http://www.infowars.com/trump-rips-leftists-judges-after-disgraceful-hearing-we-are-at-risk/
The Seattle District Judge apparently didn't even address the statute.
When the courts embark on imaginary interpretation of plain language, there really is no law; everything is up to the individual preferences of the judges hearing the cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment