Re:Interesting Legal Dilemma (Score 1)

I don't think you're interested in the merits or defects of the decision at all. You certainly haven't tendered a cogent defence of it. You simply repeat your view of what the decision states, which is scarcely the point of the discussion, unless you have a peculiarly anti-democratic view that there is no such thing as "good law" and "bad law", there is only "the law" (and then I might expect an exposition on the merits of legal positivism or the like). Consistent with that, your comments seem to betray a bias in favour of literalism and "plain meaning"--although you seem perfectly content to offer a *different* view of the "legislative reasoning" and the "provision's purpose". Your unqualified "plain meaning" approach is inconsistent with the principles of statutory interpretation cited in the decision. Your inferred "legislative reasoning" is in direct conflict with the approach in Tombs (*notwithstanding* the Court's finding to the contrary). Finally, if you intend to be insulting, ensure you're casting intelligent insults. "Amateur jurisprudence"? The phrase is senseless.