Liberal judges once again legislating from the bench

Tom, you are absolutely correct.

Libs believe that if something is important, then it's acceptable for judges to ignore the laws on the books.  It's not their job to legislate as the legislature is in charge of such things.  This will be correctly overturned by a higher court in short order.  Then it's up to the legislature to write a law covering bees.

Sorry nutty Libs.  A bee is not a fish.  Judges don't write laws, but instead are charged with ACCURATELY interpretting the laws.

Boiler, your ignorance is appalling. You and Tom are full of shit.

From Cornel law school.

Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings. If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other related sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.

After reading the specific law regarding this issues, everyone knows that the intent was never to include bees.  My argument it not that we don't need to protect bees.  My argument is against judges distorting the obvious intent of the written law to mean something that it does not.  

Let the California legislature write law to protect these bees.

Boilerman has endorsed overturning 50 years of pro-choice precedent  by 5 judges who were pre-vetted by an activist group.     And he twice voted for the president who openly brags about nominating 3 of them based upon that dynamic..

Add it to the embarrassingly large list of issues Boilerman cant keep a consistent opinion on.

I've been amazed by Boiler's combination of stupidity and hypocrisy on this topic. The courts make a ruling he doesn't like, they're "legislating from the bench." And of course, it's always liberals supposedly doing that--because conservative judges NEVER make rulings on existing law.

Or perhaps when conservative judges make rulings that Boiler LIKES, that's good and noble and righteous and correcting a grievous wrong previously perpetrated by them "Libs" (Boiler-spelling). Of course, Boiler isn't thinking for himself on this or any other issue. He gets ginned up by Yahoo (that scrupulously accurate, accredited news source) and then comes rushing over here to share his conservitard faux outrage.

        Your lying rhetoric is nauseating....

Boys and girls, let's stay on topic.  Does anyone really believe that the legislation intended to cover bees?

Is it more ridiculous than saying a fertilized egg is a human being?

But, you're right, lets stay on toipic.   Boilerman started a thread complaining about activist judges despite his ardent support for them on the Supreme Court.   Readers should understand that massive contradiciton and hypocrisy before trying to engage in an intelligent conversation.

Enjoy !

Since PJ dodged the question, is there anyone else who actually believes that the legislation intended to cover bees?

Yes. The legislation intended to cover endangered species, and mentioned "invertebrates" specifically, and bees are invertebrates. Obviously, the legislation didn't specifically name every species on earth. The legislation was intended to protect whatever species already were endangered or would become endangered in the future.

Not a particularly hard concept to understand, but way beyond Boiler, it seems.