Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 20:00:02 GMT -5
I snuck in another post while you were typing yours! Damn, I'm sneaky! (Actually, after I finished typing my last, I was curious enough about the underlying decisions to look them up. Damn, am I going to regret the time I spent doing that! ) But anyway. See my last post with regard to the reasoning of the Magistrate/District Court and the First Circuit -- the First Circuit dug a little deeper than the lower courts in arriving at its decision.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 8:43:30 GMT -5
I had already seen it. And again, I agree with the conclusion: the statute is not ambiguous imo, as I've said from the get-go. It's very obvious that "packing for shipping" and "distribution" are two different items in a list. The lack of an Oxford comma doesn't change this, given a) the lack of Oxford commas throughout the statute, b) the specific legislative instructions to not use Oxford commas, and--most importantly--c) the lack of a conjunction preceding "packing."
From the magisterial decision:
There's no real counter to the last that I can see, aside from supposing that a word was left out. But that's flimsy reasoning imo, when the statute can be seen to make perfect sense without the supposed missing word.
The remedial discussions are all superfluous in this regard. I find that stuff interesting (and maybe is relevant if the company takes action against the State), but it's all "what-if" for me, based on "what if the statute is ambiguous?" Again, imo it very clearly is not. The First Circuit's ruling is a serious reach. But hey, it's the law now...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 10:04:27 GMT -5
And again, I disagree. I think the First Circuit did an excellent job at illustrating why an ambiguity existed in the phrasing. Which is what matters, btw -- whether ambiguity existed. If there is any ambiguity, the drivers win as a matter of law. This isn't about "well, I think this reading is more convincing than that one." It's about "is it possible to read this more than one way?"
CAN one read it your way? Well, of course. Certainly. But you can also read it the other way (and there's support for it beyond grammar, as the First Circuit explained). Unless you can eliminate the reasonable possibility of that other reading, the drivers win. That's not some new way of looking at it the First Circuit came up with. That's the way they are supposed to analyze it.
Neither the Magistrate nor the District Court judge really dug into the question of how the legislature had previously used the terms "packing for shipment" and "packing for distribution". They just concluded the terms were redundant. On the surface, that sounds plausible. But not when one considers how the legislature previously used the terms. The First Circuit examined more deeply into a question the Magistrate and District Court just shrugged off.
In other words, if packing for shipping and packing for distribution had been treated by the legislature as the same thing, the dairy would have won, since the driver's reading would have been redundant. But the legislature didn't -- it has mentioned them as different things.
Note that as a matter of policy, I don't think we want to encourage milk drivers to lollygag. But that's the business of the legislature.
And I also think, as a matter of policy, we want to encourage clear statutes. Moreover, we want to prevent employers from taking advantage of workers.
(the absence of the "and"? yeah, not convincing to me at all, actually, not in a list like that one, and especially not in a statute. Certainly I don't think it enough, in light of all the rest, to eliminate all possibility of ambiguity. And that's what it would have it do, legally speaking.)
ETA:
To boil this down.
The magistrate/district court opinions didn't just hang on grammar. It did not hang on the absence of "and." It hung on "ok, given this grammar, what happens with each of the two possible readings?"
The drivers lost in that court not based on mere grammar, but based on the judge's conclusion that the drivers' reading of the sentence would be redundant because both terms meant the same thing. (and superficially, they certainly do sound like they might mean the same thing.) Thus, the court reasoned, one could eliminate that reading based on the redundancy.
THAT was the conclusion the First Circuit disagreed with. They took the extra step of investigating whether the legislature had used those terms before, and how. Having done so, they concluded that the terms were NOT redundant. And therefore, ambiguity was possible.
In other words, this didn't hinge on mere grammar, even in the lower court. Note that the lower court went into the question of what each reading meant. if it were resolvable as a simple matter of grammar, they wouldn't have bothered. However, the magistrate and district court contented themselves with concluding the terms meant the same thing, without delving into it. The First Circuit did delve in, and THAT'S why they reversed. it was not about the "and."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 14:12:08 GMT -5
Frankly, Rob, I think there's only one way you and I are ever going to settle this...
ETA:
By the way, you've hit the thousand post mark. It is truly tragic that I do not have schmooing powers so that I could help you celebrate this historic occasion properly.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 17:00:01 GMT -5
I find this shit fascinating...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 17:11:17 GMT -5
Really, that's how court cases should be decided.
For mod disputes, however, I advocate iocane powder.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 18:02:33 GMT -5
You're a cantaloupe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 18:04:17 GMT -5
Pfft. Sez the eggplant.
eta:
Though, come to think of it, you remind me more of a potato. Possibly a turnip.
|
|