Liberal judges once again legislating from the bench

If someone on this site can convince me that a bee is a type of fish, then I'll retract my statement.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-court-rules-bees-type-154540955.html

The article is self explanatory. Bees need to be protected.

Without bees, mankind would die.

Although four different bee species were classified as endangered in 2018, land invertebrates are not explicitly protected under the state's Endangered Species Act (CESA), which protects endangered "native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant."

Your post and the link you provide show just how stupid both you and Yahoo are. Yahoo misinterpreted the judges' ruling--the question was whether bees are invertebrates.

But that's much too big a word for either you or Yahoo to understand. That's what happens when you use a propaganda outlet as a "news" source.

End of discussion.

  It's a judge in California - enough said.

Only someone utterly ignorant of politics thinks that every citizen/voter/judge/politician/elected official in California is a liberal.

But in this instance, being "liberal" means being willing to embrace and implement change, which in this case, meant broadening the Endangered Species Act to include bees. Boilerscum really thinks that's a bad thing? Millerfool thinks so, too? Really?

Boiler spends most of his waking hours thrashing around, looking for something to erupt in faux conservitard outrage about, but protecting bees---? Why pretend that's a political issue? Dumb fuck Boiler!

  California - land of fruits and nuts.....

The point that Boiler was making rather than having the courts decide, have the legislature amend the law

Oh, so you opposed it when the Supreme Court invalidated campaign finance law that had been passed by Congress and signed by the President? Or when the Court invalidated the Voting Rights Act, which had passed Congress by HUGE margins?

Actually, I bet you just LOVE that legislating from the bench...sometimes.

Yeah..."nutty" things such as taking care of the environment. I agree, in Tayucksass, they don't worry about that "liberal nonsense." With the consequence that Tayucksass is now a polluted, toxic, festering shithole.

Why? A primary function of the courts, at all levels and since our country's founding, is to interpret existing law.

And the virtue-signaling trigger phrase for conservitards when that happens and they don't like it is "legislating from the bench," which is a stupidly misleading and inaccurate phrase. Courts don't legislate; they interpret existing legislation. That's their job.

It's not any different than the courts deciding that a situation that wasn't anticipated by the drafters of a law is or isn't applicable. The alternative would be to return to the legislative process over and over and be constantly redrafting the same laws. That would be far too unwieldy.

Another concept that's escaping you is that the law doesn't need to be amended if it's determined that the existing language covers the situation--which is another function of the courts. In this case, the court determined that bees are invertebrates and therefore, the existing law applied to that species' protection.

Boiler's reaction--and yours--were stupid and shallow. Sometimes you have to try thinking instead.