Big win for the Unions, and for our collective rights to organise here.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not part of the judges reasoning means it was not a reason. This is how the law works. This isn’t hyper literal, this is basic logic.

    Legislation is not the same as judicial rulings. Judicial rulings need to be based on specific reasons. If they were not used, they are not reasons behind that ruling.

    • amanneedsamaid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but the judicial ruling did something. Its one of the reasons why you would want them to do that. Some people have that viewpoint towards the law, therefore it is a reason to repeal it. Like I’ve said three times now, the other reason is the more legally important one.

      This is not basic logic, you are being hyper-literal.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wants are not reasons behind the decision. You can have wants A through Z. It is decided because of Z, then Z is the reason. A through Y are not the reason behind the decision.

        This is basic logic.

        I’ll leave you to your feelings.

        • amanneedsamaid
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Y is a reason to make that decision. One is more applicable legally. They are both reasons behind the decision.

          I’ll leave you to your feelings.

          • kenbw2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think this is easily solved. I think both of you are right/wrong in your logic.

            Judge A has an undisclosed reason X for a decision

            Union Head B presents reason Y for a decision

            X could equal Y. But we have no evidence either way. So X and Y could be entirely different or they could be the same