Just thought i would drop in and say hi. I am in law school now and i thought i would tell you guys a bit about it. Most specifically contract law and tort law.
ITS TOTAL BULLSHIT.
It's very obvious from reading the decisions that the lawyer with the better bullshit won the case almost every time. I was getting more and more distressed the more i convinced myself that this was the case, so i stopped studying for a midterm and decided to go in and bullshit my way through it instead of actually going by my outline. I got the best comments on the bullshit midterm.
Gonna Be? I've already been corrupted. US v Oakland Cannibis Buyers Coop. in which SCOTUS ruled a med. nec. defense can't be used when legislature has specifically precluded it even though the defense was specifically created to go against legislature was one of the good ones.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
No no, I meant, antonin scalia... man, learning from him would be a nightmare.
it is quite interesting. i think the funniest part is how all these students read these cases and try and figure out how to make every case work with every other case, instead of just reading it, spotting the BS and then figuring out which BS the prof likes the best.
Learning from Scalia might be a nightmare, but putting a class from him on my resume might not be.
I love hearing from people on the inside, especially lawyers. So please, BDS, continue with this thread.
It would help me, though, if you could define BS more precisely. I know of several types of BS that could apply. The BS of talking about something you know nothing about. The BS of starting with erroneous principles and then making logical arguments from them. The BS of taking good principles and making good-sounding but illogical arguments from them. And, of course, the ever-popular BS of using all three at once.
So which type of BS are you referring to? And please provide examples. Nothing is more fascinating than listening to both sides of a Supreme Court argument, because both sides usually make a good case. Issues that make you think are always interesting.
quote:I love hearing from people on the inside, especially lawyers. So please, BDS, continue with this thread.
I am still in law school, so take all of this with a grain of salt.
So far, the most prevalent I have seen is the third kind. Common law builds on itself, and the root principles are generally pretty good. The more egregious the crime, the better the logic it seems. However, in contract law and tortious negligence, the issues are so gray that the logic always sounds good. It is hard to pick a side as the morally right side to support, and therefore almost any decent sounding argument rings true. Because of this, the gray cases make law that are precedent for obvious cases and sometimes force those obvious cases to be decided unjustly.
examples: Necessity is an affirmative defense (def has the burden of proof). It can be raised when the def chooses to do a lesser evil instead of a greater evil, and those were his only two choices. It basically says the defendant gets to break the law because his only other choice was a worse crime. The black lady who refused to move from her seat on the bus raised the necessity defense (forgot her name).
In State v Oakland Cannabis Buyers Coop. SCOTUS said you can't raise med. nec. defense for drug laws because the legislature has already determined that taking drugs is worse than the suffering that those drugs might end. There are apparently (and i found this very surprising) a certain amount of ills that marijuana provides a large amount of relief from, which is exactly the kind of situation that necessity should be raised in, and yet they have precluded the defense because the war on drugs is more important to the legislature than ending those people's suffering. the logic is alot more convoluted than what i have laid out here and it is hard to explain without just reading the case.
Another surprising fact my teacher let us in on during the discussion of this case: the three largest supporters of the anti-marijuana lobby are the lumber industry, the cotton industry, and some columbian businessman lobby.