The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.

The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/zQdpf

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 year ago

      Thanks. I know very little about this stuff. My understanding is that there is an order to understand the law. Canons of construction, right? So wouldn’t that mean that the intent behind the law can only be invoked if the text as written is open to multiple understanding? If that is the case how can they invoke that if the text can never be ambiguous?

      If the text must only be looked at exactly as written you can’t claim it could be ambiguous. If you can’t claim it is ambiguous then you can’t worry about what they really meant to say. Guess I am lost. It seems like they are arguing for a method that if fully applied would mean the method can’t be applied.

      What mistake am I making? Also thanks again.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 year ago

      But a constitution is not a dictionary. It is designed to restrict the current majority, if the majority redefines what the words in the constitution mean it is no restriction.