我为什么反反复复提当年的法官不断维护回溯恶法权威呢？因为当我知道这回事后，对这次违宪诉讼的律师做的辩论感到震惊：他们为什么要明知故犯，为什么水准这么烂，这么不敬业？？？
这是他们上次辩论的中心要点：
The applicants submit that section 87.4 (Annex A), properly construed, does not apply retrospectively to interfere with vested rights. Further, they submit that it does not operate to terminate the applications as a matter of law, but rather that individualized adjudication must follow to determine what applications the provision in fact captures; put otherwise, the applications remain extant until a subsequent administrative action or adjudicative decision is made.
Justice Rennie在418判决书里对此的回应，其实一点不新鲜，那几乎就是照抄03年Justie Kelen的原话：
[35] , the statutory language clearly conveys the legislative intent to apply the new Act retrospectively and to authorize regulations with retrospective effect. It is trite law that Parliament can expressly enact retroactive or retrospective legislation, and this clear expression overrides the presumption against retroactivity or retrospectivity, which is identified in section 43 of the Interpretation Act.
只要国会在法律条款里清楚的表达要回溯，这个回溯就是合法的。因为这是另外一个法案：Interpretation Act的规定。
所以如果那些律师像个复读机一样，把有关回溯的狡辩在FCA再复读一次，那就只能被FCA的法官再次否定。如果继续做复读机重复老调到最高法院，最高法院根本不会理他们，而是直接dismiss the application for leave，连开庭的机会都不给。打开最高法院的网站看看，有几个案子能得到Leave？绝大多数案子根本进不了门。
如果这个反回溯的狡辩能成功，那就不仅仅是一刀切被判违宪，连Interpretation Act也要被违宪，最高法院百年来的很多判决也要被推翻。所以这个辩论注定是要惨败的。03年那样的政治环境下，法院都没允许双方硬碰硬，这次更不可能了。
如果你看了这一段感到沮丧，先别急。这个复杂的事情还要花很多功夫解释。
