The Interocitor

Far be it from me to defend the Dog Trainer generally, but in this instance, their use of the word "law" is appropriate. Judges don't write statutes, but they do make "law" every time the rule. To argue that judges can't make "law" is to argue that the "common law" isn't law, either.

Xrlq--

There are a number of definitions of "law" over at dictionary.com. One of them is this: "A piece of enacted legislation." None of them is "The decision of a court."

I think there is a difference between interpreting constitutions and statutes and creating wholly new law. Sure, a court can be said to "make law" every time they decide where a comma was intended in a statute, or deal with an overlooked situation, but they aren't really doing that. They are just refining current understanding.

Making laws is a legislative function, amending the constitution is a function for the legislature and/or the voters. A court doing this is usurping power. Now perhaps that is what they did -- they created a new law in MA and they are ordering it enforced, and basing it on the new part of the state Consitution that they added themselves, pretending that they found some notes to the effect in the margins.

But there is as yet no legistative statute you can point to, which is what nearly everyone refers to when they say "law". In fact, the legislature disagrees.

A side note: It is ironic that the MA Constitution has such an aversion to amendments that it takes 3 years and 3 votes, yet allows judges the power to amend it by creative interpretation without any such delay. The MA SC's failure to stay their ruling in keeping with this established aversion to change is disappointing, and reinforces my feeling that they know that they are overstepping, but they also know they have the raw power to get away with it.

It will be interesting to see if the next voter revolt starts in Massachusetts, this time against runaway judges.

Dude, you've got the definition wrong. This should have been clear enough from the fact that you had to skip the first three definitions of "law" to find a single sense of the word that was inconsistent with a court having issued it. For examples of situations where the word "law" refers only to court decisions, see the more specific for "common law" and "case law." Those two types of law are judge-made law, and always have been, even before England had a Parliament IIRC. Statutory law is passed by legislatures. Case law and common law are not. All three types of law are, however, law.

Now, you can argue that the case in question was wrongly decided, and that the SJC arrogated to itself a policymaking function that it had no business claiming. I agree. However, that does not change the fact that ruling is "law," any more than it changes the fact that it is a court order. It means that it is bad law.

"see the more specific for..." =
"see the more specific entries for ..."

You may consider the terms "the law" and "a law" to be interchangable. I don't.

The court did not interpret the law, they wrote a statute. In fact, they told the legislature to either write the statute or the court would impose it on their own.

If I libel you, am I violating "a law" or just "the law?"

Xrlq--

The common, undertood, newspaper-reading public's definition of "the state’s new law" means something the legislature passed, not something the legislature VOTED DOWN.

Which is where this started.

BTW, you would be violating God's Law ("Thou shall not bear false witness")

Only if I was testifying as a witness. Depending on the state (e.g., California), I might be violating a statute also. Otherwise, I'd be violating the common law. Like the common law definition of marriage, it's a lot like "the state's new law," except that it's not new.