Re: [請益] 此句話的含意

[foffy (呼嚕)]

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 humbler: 謝謝你!!!
→ humbler: 想再請教一下，第二句的good policy是什麼意思?
→ foffy: 覺得是指可行原則(先例中)
推 humbler: 不好意思，我還是想不通，為什麼這邊會冒出上訴
→ foffy: 還是你要提供前後段落做判別呢？
推 humbler: 謝謝你特地回復我，我看了前後段跟這段對話沒有相連
→ humbler: 我想我還要思考一下，這邊的considerations的用法
→ humbler: 因為considerations法律用語上叫做約因(對價)
→ humbler: 想說會不會在這邊該這麼解釋
→ humbler: 此外，可以請教下good policy可行原則這是法律用語嗎？