From the mailbag

Reader HAG dissents, somewhat, on Nuci's Space ...

It seems pretty obvious that the higher court's ruling was the only one they could make given the current law. In spite of the good intentions, the law that was codified says exactly what the judge's ruling says. It is simply poorly worded/crafted. The judges have actually done the non-profits a huge favor. This is not at all unusual. Our legislators frequently intend something and then adopt laws that really don't support their intentions. Now, we have a good reason and some good momentum to get the law re-written so that it supports the original intent in the actual wording of the law.

So, now maybe we can see some new legislation that will correct the wording of the laws so that the courts can finally uphold the good intentions of Jane Kidd and Louise McBee.

You can never lose sight of the "chain" that is part of our form of government - legislative bodies write laws but judicial bodies interpret and enforce them. And, editorially speaking, legislators are frequently not well-qualified to craft laws. The separation of powers prevents judges from being consulted as to how to word those laws so that the intent is reflected in them.