"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Frankly the rules a very terse and obviously written to give the courts
the widest latitude in interpretation. It was intended that the courts
would have an active roll in determining the law.

And, as a liberal I suppose you think that's a good thing?

You idiot, you.

Read the Constitution. Courts don't 'determine law' under the
constitution. When there is a dispute, courts are supposed to
apply the law as it exists - not change it.

If the language of the law is too vague it is the court's
responsibility to strike down the law - not to write a
new one.

Law means nothing if it can be changed at will by courts.

In the USA it is ONLY legislatures (citizens) who are allowed
to write law - not judges.

CN