Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Hm. I could be mistaken, but isn't it the job of the legislators to fix loopholes, rather than juries/judges etc.? 
Because I can assure you that as soon as judges, juries, etc. start interpreting the law 'liberally', there will be people whining about "judicial activism", and how that is even worse than "dumbness"; never mind the fact that the case will be dismissed by a judge on appeal because of technical improprieties.
It's all well and good (and above all oh so very convenient) to rail against "dumb" <something>, but it really helps if you at least get the group you want to be railing against straight. |
As far as I can tell, when a judge makes a decision that's a bit of a stretch from the letter of the statute/precedent it's "good sound legal reasoning" if I/you/he like it, "possibly troubling" if I'm/you're/he's not sure, and "judicial activism" if I/you/he disagree.
A simple matter of grammar.
The problem arises because each of us has different ideas of which decisions fall in which categories.
Xenophon