[anoncake]

> But option one doesn't extract revenue from foreign companies. Which is why people are suspicious of your motives when you jump to option two.

I don't think we need to cater to paranoid Americans.

> Option one also has the advantage that it can produce more coherent results, because the legislature doesn't have to operate under the pretext that it isn't making a change to the law when it really is.

It's perfectly reasonable for a legislature to assume it isn't changing the law when the law isn't being changed and it's not the legislature that is acting.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I don't think we need to cater to paranoid Americans.

A fine position if you don't care about businesses abandoning the European market and the US government using it to justify retaliation against EU companies in the US market.

> It's perfectly reasonable for a legislature to assume it isn't changing the law when the law isn't being changed and it's not the legislature that is acting.

If a court is interpreting the law to mean something other than what it says, it's changing the law.

[anoncake]

> A fine position if you don't care about businesses abandoning the European market and the US government using it to justify retaliation against EU companies in the US market.

Oh well. We might become as isolated as China. Businesses don't care about rule of law when there is profit to be made. Also most people are capable of understanding how laws and courts work.

> If a court is interpreting the law to mean something other than what it says, it's changing the law.

If a court is making jokes and filming sketches, it's a comedy troupe.