Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnL4 | Hacker News Reader

And, so, in keeping with Gorsuch's minimalism. No re-interpretation of existing law, which makes the right happy (or did, until recently, I guess).

View on HN

Sometimes I wish the SCOTUS would reinterpret things that were obviously wrong... but I'd much rather have the SCOTUS interpret the law as it was intended, and have Congress fix the actual problems with the law.

“As intended “ isn’t “as it is written “. See the recent ruling that came down saying that LGBTQ people are protected under the civil rights act of 1967 because the words are very plainly written. Just because the people in congress probably didn’t intend to protect the LGBTQ community given the culture at the time the WORDS of the law are very clear.

"As intended" versus "as written" really depends on the law being discussed and the justice interpreting the law. For example, constitutional scholarship seems to lean heavily on interpreting the law by its intent rather than purely by the words

I mean.... that case was neither "as it is written" nor "as intended".

In that case the court simply ruled on what was morally right.

LGBTQ people were not intended to be protected in the 1967 law, nor was it written as such.

I agree they deserve protections and Congress should amend the law as such. It's sad SCOTUS is made to break its role to fix this.

>> obviously wrong

Who can say what this is?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com