undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Cogito
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:48 pm

undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Cogito » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:05 pm

Repeated frustration with the reasoning style of court opinions (esp. supreme court) led to an interpretation of stare decisis as essentially a vacuouc concept effectively functioning as a proxy for policy. The theory defended here is that stare decisis inevitably lacks a logically rigorous criterion of factual likeness. Thus, at bottom, stare decisis is a kind of facade of objectivity obscuring the policy considerations that are doing the real work in the background.

Hammer v. Dagenhart, U.S. v. Darby, and some related cases serve as a historical backdrop of examples, but essentially any line of precedent can be subjected to a similar kind of analysis.

Read the piece at --LinkRemoved--

Let me know what you guys think. Thanks!

Younger Abstention
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Younger Abstention » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:21 pm

To be honest, it's amateur and underdeveloped. Those cases you use as examples are 1L hazing that no one outside of an intro to Con Law class care about. You also sound like a blowhard using all of those big words, even the top scholars don't do that. The concepts are difficult enough to understand already; write in plain English.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby fatduck » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:26 pm

what a coincidence, i recently wrote a paper on the exact same topic

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby thecilent » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:26 pm

ibid, your honor

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby fatduck » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:31 pm

i forgot to add: a fortiori, go fuck yourself.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby nealric » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:31 pm

What you seem to be talking about isn't much different from what the critical legal theory types have been talking about for a good quarter century, and what the judicial realists were talking about almost 100 years ago.

Protip: when making a legal argument, it helps to cite precedent that is less than 75 years old unless writing specifically about legal history.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby vamedic03 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:37 pm

Cogito wrote:Repeated frustration with the reasoning style of court opinions (esp. supreme court) led to an interpretation of stare decisis as essentially a vacuouc concept effectively functioning as a proxy for policy. The theory defended here is that stare decisis inevitably lacks a logically rigorous criterion of factual likeness. Thus, at bottom, stare decisis is a kind of facade of objectivity obscuring the policy considerations that are doing the real work in the background.

Hammer v. Dagenhart, U.S. v. Darby, and some related cases serve as a historical backdrop of examples, but essentially any line of precedent can be subjected to a similar kind of analysis.

Read the piece at --LinkRemoved--

Let me know what you guys think. Thanks!


Not trying to be harsh here but:

(1) Dramatically underdeveloped

(2) Probably not novel

I mean, this could be a starting point of a paper but:

(a) It's too expansive and overreaching

(b) You need to do a ton of research to determine where this would sit in legal academia

That said, I doubt if it's novel.

User avatar
savagedm
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:51 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby savagedm » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:25 am

Younger Abstention wrote:To be honest, it's amateur and underdeveloped. Those cases you use as examples are 1L hazing that no one outside of an intro to Con Law class care about. You also sound like a blowhard using all of those big words, even the top scholars don't do that. The concepts are difficult enough to understand already; write in plain English.


+181

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Veyron » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:28 am

Sometimes I feel intelectually meger compared to my collegues. I wonder how I will ever cut it in the world of law. Then I read shit like this and realize that most lawyers that I will be competing against are like you. My arrogance instantly returns.

User avatar
stonepeep
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby stonepeep » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:41 am

I can tell you right now that you won't be able to turn this into a good paper. It's way too broad and you're trying so hard to sound like a legal academic that it's obvious you have no experience with legal academic writing. You should develop your writing skills a lot more before you even attempt to tackle a subject as broad as this one. If something written like this came across my desk during article selection at my journal I'd shitcan it.

Also maybe it's just your terrible writing but what you've written does not strike me as novel or radical in any way. You mean no two cases are factually identical and policy choices are involved in deciding cases? No fucking way!

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Veyron » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:02 am

stonepeep wrote:I can tell you right now that you won't be able to turn this into a good paper. It's way too broad and you're trying so hard to sound like a legal academic that it's obvious you have no experience with legal academic writing. You should develop your writing skills a lot more before you even attempt to tackle a subject as broad as this one. If something written like this came across my desk during article selection at my journal I'd shitcan it.

Also maybe it's just your terrible writing but what you've written does not strike me as novel or radical in any way. You mean no two cases are factually identical and policy choices are involved in deciding cases? No fucking way!


TBF, most legal theory is similarly asinine.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Always Credited » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:04 am

Veyron wrote:Sometimes I feel intelectually meger compared to my collegues. I wonder how I will ever cut it in the world of law. Then I read shit like this and realize that most lawyers that I will be competing against are like you. My arrogance instantly returns.

User avatar
dooterdude11
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:49 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby dooterdude11 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:36 am

Does it ever bother TLS posters that most of the stuff they say on this forum they would a) never have the balls to say to someone face to face and b) would get their asses whipped if they did?

The most "novel" thing in this thread so far are the cartoonishly over- harsh responses to the OP.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby fatduck » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:37 am

dooterdude11 wrote:Does it ever bother TLS posters that most of the stuff they say on this forum they would a) never have the balls to say to someone face to face and b) would get their asses whipped if they did?

The most "novel" thing in this thread so far are the cartoonishly overly harsh responses to the OP.

dude. have you read this guy's posts? doesn't exactly scream ass-kicker to me.

User avatar
dooterdude11
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:49 am

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby dooterdude11 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:44 am

fatduck wrote:
dooterdude11 wrote:Does it ever bother TLS posters that most of the stuff they say on this forum they would a) never have the balls to say to someone face to face and b) would get their asses whipped if they did?

The most "novel" thing in this thread so far are the cartoonishly overly harsh responses to the OP.

dude. have you read this guy's posts? doesn't exactly scream ass-kicker to me.


Well, it's just funny to imagine TLS-land vs face-to-face land in situations like this.

TLS-land--OP: "This is my theory. Thoughts?"

1st responder: "you are an idiot and a shitty writer."
2nd responder: "My theory is your mother should have aborted you."
3rd responder: "I am WAY dumber having read the festering, stinking bullshit you just put into my head."

Face to Face--OP: "This is my theory. Thoughts?"

1st responder: "It's interesting. Maybe you could provide more evidence, but a compelling start!"
2nd responder: "I disagree, but it is an intriguing start. Maybe work on the premises."

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Always Credited » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:56 am

dooterdude11 wrote:
fatduck wrote:
dooterdude11 wrote:Does it ever bother TLS posters that most of the stuff they say on this forum they would a) never have the balls to say to someone face to face and b) would get their asses whipped if they did?

The most "novel" thing in this thread so far are the cartoonishly overly harsh responses to the OP.

dude. have you read this guy's posts? doesn't exactly scream ass-kicker to me.


Well, it's just funny to imagine TLS-land vs face-to-face land in situations like this.

TLS-land--OP: "This is my theory. Thoughts?"

1st responder: "you are an idiot and a shitty writer."
2nd responder: "My theory is your mother should have aborted you."
3rd responder: "I am WAY dumber having read the festering, stinking bullshit you just put into my head."

Face to Face--OP: "This is my theory. Thoughts?"

1st responder: "It's interesting. Maybe you could provide more evidence, but a compelling start!"
2nd responder: "I disagree, but it is an intriguing start. Maybe work on the premises."

The mode of communication doesn't detract from the truthfulness of whats been said here. He posted on the internet. He should expect internet style responses.

User avatar
stonepeep
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby stonepeep » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:59 am

You really think any of the comments in this thread are worthy of an ass-kicking?

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby fatduck » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:59 am

Always Credited wrote:
dooterdude11 wrote:
fatduck wrote:
dooterdude11 wrote:Does it ever bother TLS posters that most of the stuff they say on this forum they would a) never have the balls to say to someone face to face and b) would get their asses whipped if they did?

The most "novel" thing in this thread so far are the cartoonishly overly harsh responses to the OP.

dude. have you read this guy's posts? doesn't exactly scream ass-kicker to me.


Well, it's just funny to imagine TLS-land vs face-to-face land in situations like this.

TLS-land--OP: "This is my theory. Thoughts?"

1st responder: "you are an idiot and a shitty writer."
2nd responder: "My theory is your mother should have aborted you."
3rd responder: "I am WAY dumber having read the festering, stinking bullshit you just put into my head."

Face to Face--OP: "This is my theory. Thoughts?"

1st responder: "It's interesting. Maybe you could provide more evidence, but a compelling start!"
2nd responder: "I disagree, but it is an intriguing start. Maybe work on the premises."

The mode of communication doesn't detract from the truthfulness of whats been said here. He posted on the internet. He should expect internet style responses.

i re-read this thread and the previous thread, and i can't find anything i wouldn't say to this dude in person

honestly i think it's a lot more faux-hard to act like someone's going to kick your ass because you say their writing is dumb. really? it doesn't happen.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby fatduck » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:01 am

stonepeep wrote:You really think any of the comments in this thread are worthy of an ass-kicking?

it's a chicken-and-egg dilemma. OP would obviously kick anyone's ass who says something remotely negative toward him, but everyone is cowering in fear of his radiating toughness, and never says anything, so the ass-kickings never occur.

User avatar
stonepeep
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby stonepeep » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:02 am

Well shit.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby Always Credited » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:05 am

fatduck wrote:
stonepeep wrote:You really think any of the comments in this thread are worthy of an ass-kicking?

it's a chicken-and-egg dilemma. OP would obviously kick anyone's ass who says something remotely negative toward him, but everyone is cowering in fear of his radiating toughness, and never says anything, so the ass-kickings never occur.


I hope you come to geedubz

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby fatduck » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:29 am

Always Credited wrote:
fatduck wrote:
stonepeep wrote:You really think any of the comments in this thread are worthy of an ass-kicking?

it's a chicken-and-egg dilemma. OP would obviously kick anyone's ass who says something remotely negative toward him, but everyone is cowering in fear of his radiating toughness, and never says anything, so the ass-kickings never occur.


I hope you come to geedubz

:D kinda looking that way atm

lawfuture10
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:19 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby lawfuture10 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:51 am

Veyron wrote:Sometimes I feel intelectually meger compared to my collegues. I wonder how I will ever cut it in the world of law. Then I read shit like this and realize that most lawyers that I will be competing against are like you. My arrogance instantly returns.


Veyron is by far my favorite character on this board.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby flcath » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:01 am

I started, but couldn't make it all the way through.

I can't comment on the substantive merit of the article (as a very, very general proposition, it's unlikely that's it's novel), but your writing style is very tedious to read.

You're probably very smart, but dude, read a well-written judicial opinion (and LR articles are even better about this) and they can be read at a consistent pace. If you have to go back through and re-read something, it's for substantive understanding, not to decipher the language. I can't say the same about your article.

If you feel like your point is too much of an intellectual push-over (either b/c it's simplistic, or empirically unsupported, or tautological) when not dressed up in shitty verbosity, then that's cause for substantive change, not burying it in verbiage.

pasteurizedmilk
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:12 pm

Re: undermining stare decisis - please critique this 1L's theory

Postby pasteurizedmilk » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:05 am

Veyron wrote:Sometimes I feel intelectually meger compared to my collegues. I wonder how I will ever cut it in the world of law. Then I read shit like this and realize that most lawyers that I will be competing against are like you. My arrogance instantly returns.

Damn. That's some deep-seeded insecurity.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adub5, jerrycallo, LawHammer and 6 guests