• fanta69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like I said, it was likely made intentionally vague - either with malicious intent or to give wiggle room for this exact sort of legal debacle while still getting the legislation passed

      Or, again, whoever wrote this is stupid

      It’s really a coin toss for either option