This paper is a consideration focusing on the fundamental relationship between linguistics and the judicial system while conducting a review of the history of judicial interpretation (research) in Japan. Comparisons are made between prior research data (texts of legal precedents and accompanying narratives) and current social movements. In negotiating how to address this question, the dual disciplines of social and human sciences were necessarily combined within the methodological approach. Through this work, I will try to release judicial interpreters from the existing framework such as linguistics, judicial system or legal linguistics, not just to recapture and interpret it again. It is indeed a truism that the nature of law utilizes language as its principle weapon - or mode of discourse. Through the prism of this relationship between law and language it is important how judicial interpreters can behave as an independent entity called a balance to balance the power of both. The law that the interpreter is trying to question in this paper, and the law which protects interpreters can be understood as "ethics". At the same time, "ethics" leads to the problem of "posture" of interpreters. It must be stressed that this paper is not an attempt to present any solutions - either concrete or hypothetical. Instead, it endeavors to answer the question posed by Walter Benjamin - that is, "these on the Philosophy of History(the thesis III) " it is a practical (re)consideration of the laws (concepts / laws) of history. The question in this paper departs from the wish that "the court should not be a closed world". I hope that the court is not the terminal station of the language, but is the starting station.