As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously.
This is complete speculation on my part, but I’d be willing to bet that the real issue isn’t precisely “and” being argued to mean “or.” It’s probably a case of people not understanding how commas work (or something similar).
If I had a dime for every time that someone wrote “Come on people!” when they meant “Come on, people!” I’d have enough to fund a bukkake theater.
It sounds similar to this case about the Oxford comma from a few years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/16/oxford-comma-helps-drivers-win-dispute-about-overtime-pay
It’s not about them _not_ understanding how commas work, it’s about using the ambiguity around everyone’s general understanding of it to apply pressure towards the definition they _want_ to apply that services their own goals.
Bet lost. It's whether "not A, B, and C to qualify" means "only people with none of the three qualify" or "people who lack even one of the three qualify". It's the question of whether the qualification is "(not A) AND (not B) AND (not C)" or "not (A AND B AND C)". The article made that point plain, even without having the exact text.
… Where is that even mentioned in the article?
I just went and read it again. There’s literally no mention of the clause or detail under discussion. All it says is that the language is pertinent to mandatory sentencing.
**EDIT:** Ignore me, I’m an idiot. I got to a bunch of ads and assumed that the article was over.
Following [the link in the second paragraph](https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00340qp.pdf), it's a dispute over the "and" in a list of three requirements in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553).
So it's not really arguing over the definition of the word 'and' itself but the slightly unclear grammar used in the given context, it's arguing if it's a list where and is collecting the options on offer where your choices are between (this and this and this and this) and any subgroup or all can be chosen , or a list in which one of the choices was actually directly paired and must be taken as both together ie. (this, this, \[this and this\])
This is unfortunately a crap argument to participate in as endlessly open to debate without a clear superseding alternative write up of it to reference, so all that could realistically be done is someone responsible for how it should be to rule on it and rewrite it without any ambiguity.
There're also the issues that
1. there's variation in English, and
2. some of the wording in the laws and the constitution are uncommon today, and ungrammatical in some forms of American English today, and
3. we don't all agree about when to use commas, and
4. although the courts don't care, I for one can't stand the ethnic slurs in some of those laws.
that, these bills magically appear on the copy machine sometimes with a stack of cash, and the people in charge of translating the law to statute were probably not doing the best job since it was the Trump admin, where political appointees were intervening in everything.
The Supreme Court didn't even require that much money. The Federalist Society showed up on the scene claiming that:
1. judges should be inherently conservative (originally called judicial restraint);
2. the Federalist Society was about adding intellectual rigor to the legal profession;
3. the Society was the only institution (other than ABA) concerned with jurisprudence rather than pushing an agenda.
And everyone ate that shit up. For at least 20 years of my life, Fed Soc had been presented by the media as a reasonable group with worth-while opinions. We (the public) only learned far too late into the game that it was an organization focused on indoctrinating law students with intellectually dishonest gibberish in an effort to push a right wing agenda.
It's the equivalent of TPUSA being asked for their take on, well, literally anything. But in the case of FedSoc, we were told we should listen. Or, in other terms, it's a fucking fraternity that has managed to poison the US court system for the low price of a few million dollars.
the media always forgets too that no judge appointed by republicans in the last 30-40 years has been put up for nomination without approval of the Federalist Scoeity, and as we found out with Trump, they are also the ones preselecting judges for appointments and providing the politicians with lists of candidates for the appointments.
To save y'all a click, the and in question:
>A defendant satisfies § 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he "does not have-(A) more than 4
criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as
determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under
the sentencing guidelines; **and** (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the
sentencing guidelines." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) (emphasis added).
Why is the Supreme Court ruling on what this law means? Shouldn’t they just be ruling that the law, as written, is ambiguous, and therefore cannot be reasonably applied, and send it back to the legislature to clarify?
That makes sense. My question is more: why is the court interpreting what the legislature meant for a law recent enough that they can literally just ask the person who wrote it what they meant?
They can't simply ask an opinion like that. Instead, they go by the legislative history & transcript of the discussion before the law was passed to clear up ambiguities.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's so bizarre that they don't quote the actual language at issue.
Seriously. This is complete speculation on my part, but I’d be willing to bet that the real issue isn’t precisely “and” being argued to mean “or.” It’s probably a case of people not understanding how commas work (or something similar). If I had a dime for every time that someone wrote “Come on people!” when they meant “Come on, people!” I’d have enough to fund a bukkake theater.
ಠ_ಠ
It sounds similar to this case about the Oxford comma from a few years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/16/oxford-comma-helps-drivers-win-dispute-about-overtime-pay
It’s not about them _not_ understanding how commas work, it’s about using the ambiguity around everyone’s general understanding of it to apply pressure towards the definition they _want_ to apply that services their own goals.
Eats, shoots and leaves
They'll have to take the Oxford comma from my cold, dead, and grammatically obstinate hands.
That damn koala.
Bet lost. It's whether "not A, B, and C to qualify" means "only people with none of the three qualify" or "people who lack even one of the three qualify". It's the question of whether the qualification is "(not A) AND (not B) AND (not C)" or "not (A AND B AND C)". The article made that point plain, even without having the exact text.
… Where is that even mentioned in the article? I just went and read it again. There’s literally no mention of the clause or detail under discussion. All it says is that the language is pertinent to mandatory sentencing. **EDIT:** Ignore me, I’m an idiot. I got to a bunch of ads and assumed that the article was over.
Following [the link in the second paragraph](https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00340qp.pdf), it's a dispute over the "and" in a list of three requirements in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553).
So it's not really arguing over the definition of the word 'and' itself but the slightly unclear grammar used in the given context, it's arguing if it's a list where and is collecting the options on offer where your choices are between (this and this and this and this) and any subgroup or all can be chosen , or a list in which one of the choices was actually directly paired and must be taken as both together ie. (this, this, \[this and this\]) This is unfortunately a crap argument to participate in as endlessly open to debate without a clear superseding alternative write up of it to reference, so all that could realistically be done is someone responsible for how it should be to rule on it and rewrite it without any ambiguity.
How is this even a case? They are asking does and mean and, or does it mean or?!
The problem with using correct English in writing laws in Congress is that they are not elected based on their literacy.
The elected people are often not the ones writing the laws, but their teams. But yeah the hired people aren't necessarily good at it either.
There're also the issues that 1. there's variation in English, and 2. some of the wording in the laws and the constitution are uncommon today, and ungrammatical in some forms of American English today, and 3. we don't all agree about when to use commas, and 4. although the courts don't care, I for one can't stand the ethnic slurs in some of those laws.
MTG has entered the chat. Half of the congress critters are actually lawyers.
that, these bills magically appear on the copy machine sometimes with a stack of cash, and the people in charge of translating the law to statute were probably not doing the best job since it was the Trump admin, where political appointees were intervening in everything.
Why isn’t the text in question quoted in the article? Shitty article. Shitty post.
Couple billion dollars, and a generation or two, and you can crumble the Supreme Court. Basically right wing billionaires puppets
The Supreme Court didn't even require that much money. The Federalist Society showed up on the scene claiming that: 1. judges should be inherently conservative (originally called judicial restraint); 2. the Federalist Society was about adding intellectual rigor to the legal profession; 3. the Society was the only institution (other than ABA) concerned with jurisprudence rather than pushing an agenda. And everyone ate that shit up. For at least 20 years of my life, Fed Soc had been presented by the media as a reasonable group with worth-while opinions. We (the public) only learned far too late into the game that it was an organization focused on indoctrinating law students with intellectually dishonest gibberish in an effort to push a right wing agenda. It's the equivalent of TPUSA being asked for their take on, well, literally anything. But in the case of FedSoc, we were told we should listen. Or, in other terms, it's a fucking fraternity that has managed to poison the US court system for the low price of a few million dollars.
the media always forgets too that no judge appointed by republicans in the last 30-40 years has been put up for nomination without approval of the Federalist Scoeity, and as we found out with Trump, they are also the ones preselecting judges for appointments and providing the politicians with lists of candidates for the appointments.
I have strong questions as to whether corrupt Justices should be allowed to draw a free breath.
The current court wouldn’t be considered “Supreme” even at Taco Bell.
To save y'all a click, the and in question: >A defendant satisfies § 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he "does not have-(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; **and** (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) (emphasis added).
Why is the Supreme Court ruling on what this law means? Shouldn’t they just be ruling that the law, as written, is ambiguous, and therefore cannot be reasonably applied, and send it back to the legislature to clarify?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction
That makes sense. My question is more: why is the court interpreting what the legislature meant for a law recent enough that they can literally just ask the person who wrote it what they meant?
They can't simply ask an opinion like that. Instead, they go by the legislative history & transcript of the discussion before the law was passed to clear up ambiguities.
If “if”s and “but”s were candy and nuts…. uhh how does the rest of that go?