十里画廊In the common law cases, it needs more sensitivity to nuance, and maybe someone would say the kind of nuance is different, but the sensitivity to nuance is a capability. Judges can use the capability both in common law and statutory law.
And the author lack data to indicate at fact how many judges are unable to achieve the standard which he described. And he lack the detail how much social knowledge judges should master, so he might say anyone unable it if the lack of detail command.
- 3 -
Comment on Statutes' Domains
Fang Chao, Zhang Siyue
In part VI, the conclusion was really agreed by me, especially what have been referred above is that the suggestion is tentative, and the arguments are far from complete.
Perhaps because of the incompletion, I can comment so much on the article.
QUESTIONS:
1. What do you think about that inferences of courts almost always conflict, and the
enacting Congress is unlikely to come back to life and “prove”' the court's construction wrong?
Is that inferences of courts almost always conflict the truth?
If it is true, what should the legislature do? What should the administrative do?
2. If one legislative progress had severely dangerous flaw obeying the original purpose
of the act, but we still ignore it and just focus on the statutes, then what would it happen? Could we really ignore the real effect of the action?
3. What do you think about that a failed attempt to enact a bill has no effect and in this
situation cannot courts really use legislative history either in a substantive intent or in
a formal intent?
4. Did the benefits of insisting a formal way exceed the benefits of insisting a substantial
way?
5. Did you think that it?s difficult to find the legislative intent even if that legislature
comprises many members and that each member may or may not have a design?
- 4 -
