More Law Geekery

8 thoughts on More Law Geekery

1. You are “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”! You presume that the legislature chooses words very carefully when it drafts statutes. Because they could have used a different word, but didn’t, the word not chosen was deliberately excluded. You assume a lot based, not just on what’s in front of you, but on what isn’t. You have great faith in others’ ability to know exactly what they want. Probably too much.

   I got a chuckle out of this. I say this a lot.

2. You are the Golden Rule! You presume that the legislature would not want to apply the statute to achieve an unreasonable or absurd result inconsistent with its purpose. It’s not what’s on the surface that matters for you, and you try to do what’s best in any given situation. You’re a bit unpredictable, but you don’t mind.

   All that is quite true except for the 2nd sentence. I’m too much of a cynic to believe that.

3. If you’re interested, you shouldcheck out Karl Llewellyn’s famous article making the point that almost every canon of construction has an opposing canon. For example expressio unius est exclusio alterius is opposed by ejusdem generis. Can’t find the article itself but here is the abstract of another article critiquing it:

   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=780424

4. sounds very much like the mertonian norms article and its related anti-norms arguments. for every systemic operation in society you can assume that it is motivated either my its norms…. or the same results come about by its anti-norms…

5. Lenity like a motherfucker. That’s totally me.

6. You are Interpretation in Avoidance of Constitutional Questions! You presume that the legislature doesn’t intend to draft unconstitutional stautes and so you interpret them so that you won’t have to reach a constitutional decision. Some criticize you for implicitly making constitutional law, but without stating your reasons. You like to stay away from difficult decisions. You’re kind of a weasley little bastard.

   I’m not little.

7. Oh, God, Robert. How apropos, considering your arguments in the Gitmo thread.

8. GOLDEN RULE….ya, ya, ya…that’s me all over. Rare, but right!
   🙂 🙂 🙂

   You are the Golden Rule! You presume that the legislature would not want to apply the statute to achieve an unreasonable or absurd result inconsistent with its purpose. It’s not what’s on the surface that matters for you, and you try to do what’s best in any given situation. You’re a bit unpredictable, but you don’t mind.

Comments are currently closed.