(Texas) General question about statutes

[GeneralZod]

In the state of Texas

Looking for a legal professional's thoughts on statutes.

My question has to do with Texas Statutes and whether they are objective (applied as they are written) or subjective (open to interpretation).

My research with Texas Supreme Court rulings shows that statutes are (according to Tx Supreme Court) are supposed to be objective, the court is supposed to refrain from adding or subtracting any words or meanings, the plain language is what the statute is supposed to be, and an ordinary citizen (like myself) is supposed to be able to read the statutes and rely on the fact that it means what it says. The Tex Gov't Code chapter 311 (code construction act) confirms this.

By contrast, I am told by attorneys that judges have a vast discretion on statutes and how they implement them.

Ultimately I am left with two different points of view.
The statutes seem quite clear as they are written, with English language professionals agreeing as to what statutes mean (when asked), however, the judge's rulings seem to vary greatly from those statutes written meanings and the attorneys seem to say it is normal.

I am asking if statutes are supposed to be like the Texas Supreme Court and Tex Gov't Code states... the statutes are to be implemented as they are written... OR... are the attorneys correct and the judges have a broad discretion even with statutes where NO discretion is given (by statute language)?

Thank you

 

[Zigner]

This site is not a "discussion" site. Did you have a specific legal matter that you need advice on?

 

[GeneralZod]

Maybe the term "thoughts" is the wrong term to use in this situation.

The legal matter is exactly what is asked, are statutes objective or subjective in nature.

In the legal sense, are statutes supposed to be implemented as they are written (objective) as the state supreme court says or is there another statute or rule that I am unaware of that allows judges the "broad discretion" (subjective) which I have been told they are given?

Sec. 153.251. POLICY AND GENERAL APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES. (a) The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended to guide the courts in ordering the terms and conditions for possession of a child by a parent named as a possessory conservator or as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator.

For a specific question along these lines. Giving the following copy and paste from the Texas Family Code (above), in the plain language of the statue:
the "standard possession order"
1) "intended to guide the court in ordering the terms and conditions for possession of a child by a parent named as possessory conservator"
2) "the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator"

Given the language used in the statute above, does the court have the discretion to give a parent appointed "joint managing conservator" anything less than "standard possession order" when the statute states that it is the "minimum possession" order for a JMC?

Is the statute objective, meaning that a parent who is appointed JMC gets "standard possession order" as a "minimum"?

OR

Is the statute merely subjective meaning that the judge can give the parent any possession order (s)he wants to give?

 

[Zigner]

Please see https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/texas-general-question-about-statutes.656960/#post-3663529

 

[Taxing Matters]

I am asking if statutes are supposed to be like the Texas Supreme Court and Tex Gov't Code states... the statutes are to be implemented as they are written... OR... are the attorneys correct and the judges have a broad discretion even with statutes where NO discretion is given (by statute language)?

The goal of the courts is to apply the statutes as the legislature meant them to be applied. The courts use a number of principles of statutory construction to aid them in doing that. The first principle of statutory construction is that when the language of the statute is very clear and unambiguous then the courts apply the plain language of the statute. The problem is that statutes often have some parts of them that are indeed less than clear when you read them. Nonlawyers often do not spot the ambiguity that lawyers see. Lawyers will argue that a particular word or phrase in the statute is unclear and then argue for what other principle of statutory construction should be applied to reach the meaning that the legislature intended. The courts then must resolve the differing views of the statute that each side presents.