Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
"No vehicles in the park". HLA Hart. Look it up and it will start you on your way.
Laws are not "clear" because it's actually impossible to write a law that is both absolutely clear and provides the absolutely correct rule of decision in each case.
And this is why we have judges, to exercise judgment and mercy, which turn out to be important components of a functioning legal system. And since different reasonable people disagree about how to exercise those qualities, there are plenty of hard cases.
|
I read my post again and confirmed that the court metaphor was an aside, certainly not worth argument, other than to say a law written as ambiguous is only a good idea if nobody pays attention or enforces it. The real point in the court metaphor was that at SCOTUS, it seems the same four people almost invariably see it one way, and four other people see it the other, which is to say, political perspective seems to be the determinant in many cases, and not the clarity of the law, which is exactly the point I was making with regard to the stewards. Perspective often drives decisions, and one steward sees it one way while another steward has an opposite view. Same rule, opposing interpretations. And given this is a horseracing board, I was actually sort of hoping someone might comment on the horseracing part of the post.
But forget that. I'm sure everybody is way more interested in a treatise on the judicial branch of government.
