Court Opinion

ID: 9703632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:02:47.283573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:50.762957
License: Public Domain

*141WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 59. (concurring).
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." William Jefferson Clinton.
¶ 60. I write only to emphasize that canons of statutory construction, such as the "plain meaning" rule, are tools, not rules. They are all designed to reach one fundamental goal: discerning legislative intent. Ignoring relevant evidence on legislative intent in the name of "plain meaning" will necessarily at times lead to an interpretation that is completely contrary to what the legislature intended.
¶ 61. Language is inherently ambiguous— perhaps not as ambiguous as the quotation above would have us believe, but the quote makes a point: plain meaning is frequently in the eye of the beholder. What is plain to one may be ambiguous to another. If good evidence as to legislative intent is present, why not use it? Accordingly, I join Chief Justice Abrahamson's concurrence.