"legislative intent" is in fact deeply controversial among judges. What counts as "intent"? Something a bill sponsor said, but other sponsors disagreed with?
the only certain thing is what the bill says, and the fact that it passed.
I don't think anyone said that laws were being interpreted wrongly?
The claim was that some laws have multiple tenable interpretations. So for those laws you can have multiple distinct options, none of which are wrong ways to read the text.
The thing called "wrong" was the idea that laws never do this.
I guess you think this is an important point. Judges exist to determine what is the correct way to read the law. They don't always get it right, but that doesn't mean anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.
GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense.
I don't really want to get into the importance of it here. But I do think it's true, so I replied when you called that specific point wrong.
> GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense.
> why don’t you say what language is being misinterpreted
Because that was the opposite of the claim made that you disagreed with? Unless, you mean, “what language in a post you responded to in this thread was being misinterpreted by you”…
"legislative intent" is in fact deeply controversial among judges. What counts as "intent"? Something a bill sponsor said, but other sponsors disagreed with?
the only certain thing is what the bill says, and the fact that it passed.