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
--
如果還有來世，我想當一個獸人
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.43.189.216
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1497100754.A.DD0.html