Re: [請益] 此句話的含意
我不是法律專業，一定會有人翻得比我好，以下個人淺見供參考！
1.
if that's what it's ultimately controlling
= if the language of the statute is what it's ultimately controlling
-> 如果制定法的條文才是最終影響有權解釋的關鍵？
-> 如果它才是最終影響有權解釋的關鍵？
if that's 應該要翻成 如果它是 加一個「才」字比較符合整句語意
2.
then lawyers also make appeals to considerations of what made good policy
-> 接著律師會對先例所考量過的執行原則提出上訴
make appeal 我覺得應該是上訴
寫成made 是指先例發生的事 不是律師現在做的事
what made good policy, 跟 in the past 是同一個時間點
--
另外第二行ora 是 or a (很容易看錯ＸＤ)
※ 引述《humbler (獸人H)》之銘言：
: If it's an area where there's been litigation in the past,lawyers will
: think about, when courts considered this issue, ora similar issue in the
: past,what did they say about this issue?How did they interpret the language
: of the statute,if that's what it's ultimately controlling?What do the
: precedents say?And then lawyers also make appeals to considerations of what
: made good policy.
: 這段話中有兩句話的意思我不太懂，
: 想請問各位高手我這樣解釋對不對：
: 1.
: if that's what it's ultimately controlling?
: (這解釋是否是最終掌控的關鍵呢？)
: 2.
: then lawyer also make appeals to considerations of what made good policy.
: (然後律師也會開始訴諸考慮好的訴訟策略)
: what made good policy 這句意思我不懂，還有為什麼要用made過去式，而不是現在式呢？
: 麻煩各位指點，謝謝
--
Welcome to visit Random Enlgish Everyday on Facebook!
http://bit.ly/2kG8Qla
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 123.193.43.145
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1497104874.A.447.html
※ 編輯: foffy (123.193.43.145), 06/10/2017 22:41:17
推
06/11 09:01, , 1F
06/11 09:01, 1F
→
06/11 09:02, , 2F
06/11 09:02, 2F
→
06/11 12:31, , 3F
06/11 12:31, 3F
推
06/11 20:27, , 4F
06/11 20:27, 4F
→
06/11 22:43, , 5F
06/11 22:43, 5F
推
06/12 22:51, , 6F
06/12 22:51, 6F
→
06/12 22:52, , 7F
06/12 22:52, 7F
→
06/12 22:53, , 8F
06/12 22:53, 8F
→
06/12 22:53, , 9F
06/12 22:53, 9F
→
06/12 22:54, , 10F
06/12 22:54, 10F
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 2 篇)：
請益
3
10