You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
15 points
*

and the definition of “is.”

Now the Supreme Court is debating over whether “and” means “and” or “or”

Note: the implications of the actual piece of legislature this pertains to is very important, but the concept of arguing over the definition of “and” is still absurd

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I dont think my desk can take much more punishment from me, slamming my head into it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Into it or onto it? Better convene the assembly so we can try to achieve consensus

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

yes

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Now the Supreme Court is debating over whether “and” means “and” or “or"

Sorry, European here - what the actual fuck?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Basically there’s this piece of legislature regarding nonviolent drug offenders that will spare them from longer sentences so long as they do not have on their record conditions: A B, and C

The key issue being that “and” is written right at the end of condition B

The debate is basically over whether that means they cannot have A, B, AND C on their record collectively, or if it was intended to mean they cannot have A, cannot have B, AND cannot have C - as in they cannot have any one of them

Or perhaps alternatively, they cannot have either A, or B AND C together

Basically the wording is shit - likely intentionally, but it’s also probable that whoever wrote this is just dumb… Par for the course either way, really

Hope that wasn’t too complicated… I’ve made like 6 edits to this comment trying to clear it up as best I can lmao

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That was well explained and blows my mind a court is wasting any time on that.

Here we have the convention when drafting legislation that the conjunction ‘and’ at the end of a list it means all things in the list- so A, B, and C. Whereas if ‘or’ appears, it means a choice from the list.

I get that maybe once upon a time there needed to be clarification in the courts, but that cannot me the first time such a drafting approach has been taken in legislation in the USA and so an interpretation must have been established already?

I can see why contextually there could be room for either interpretation, but it’s astonishing a consistent interpretation hasn’t been established.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They recently ruled that “adjacent” means “adjoining” … soooo …

permalink
report
parent
reply

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

Community stats

  • 8.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.1K

    Posts

  • 128K

    Comments