http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~resulliv/legdr/siinscc.html

please give me right answers please please thank

After reading the materials on how judges interpret ambiguous statutes (and in law, everything has the potential to be ambiguous) do you think judges pick and choose their preferred "test" in order to arrive at a decision they prefer? An interesting article by Professor Ruth Sullivan of the University of Ottawa discusses some of the issues for judges in interpreting laws: h_ttp:aix1.uottawa.ca!~resullivl'legdrrsiinscc.html. She says While it is true that in particular cases judges emphasize sometimes textual meaning, sometimes intended meaning or purpose, and sometimes compelling policy concerns, in doing so their approach is consistently pragmatic. Using a pragmatic approach, each judge takes advantage of the full range of interpretive resources available to interpreters and deploys those resources appropriately given the particularities of the case. Does this make sense to you, or are judges picking and choosing rules to suit their own perspective? Is it appropriate for judges to look at the bigger picture and try to nd a result that makes sense in terms of "justice" rather than be conned by wording and rules? Does this explain the conict between the majority and dissendting reasons in the Alex case in your textbook