Top Law Schools

If so, how?

Honor code?

Be more specific with your question. There a first-person experiential element to everything, thus making it
subjective. Let's not slip into the abyss of philosophical circle jerking. Law is not a HARD science, if that is your question??

carlsenvshikaru wrote:If so, how?

I'd like to answer your question, but it just seems too narrow. Could you broaden it a bit?

rpupkin wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:If so, how?

I'd like to answer your question, but it just seems too narrow. Could you broaden it a bit?

Intentionally vague so that you could interpret it however you like.

But for the sake of starting somewhere more concrete, is it possible to interpret the written law in more than one way? ...and then subsequently have it applied differently.....all while utilizing the same law? does stuff like that happen in the real world of legal practice?

carlsenvshikaru wrote: But for the sake of starting somewhere more concrete, is it possible to interpret the written law in more than one way? ...and then subsequently have it applied differently.....all while utilizing the same law? does stuff like that happen in the real world of legal practice?

That is the real world of legal practice.

carlsenvshikaru wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:If so, how?

I'd like to answer your question, but it just seems too narrow. Could you broaden it a bit?

Intentionally vague so that you could interpret it however you like.

But for the sake of starting somewhere more concrete, is it possible to interpret the written law in more than one way? ...and then subsequently have it applied differently.....all while utilizing the same law? does stuff like that happen in the real world of legal practice?

Google "circuit split"

carlsenvshikaru wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:If so, how?

I'd like to answer your question, but it just seems too narrow. Could you broaden it a bit?

Intentionally vague so that you could interpret it however you like.

But for the sake of starting somewhere more concrete, is it possible to interpret the written law in more than one way? ...and then subsequently have it applied differently.....all while utilizing the same law? does stuff like that happen in the real world of legal practice?

If this were not the case there would be effectively no need for lawyers.

freshman or high school?

Traynor Brah wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:If so, how?

I'd like to answer your question, but it just seems too narrow. Could you broaden it a bit?

Intentionally vague so that you could interpret it however you like.

But for the sake of starting somewhere more concrete, is it possible to interpret the written law in more than one way? ...and then subsequently have it applied differently.....all while utilizing the same law? does stuff like that happen in the real world of legal practice?

If this were not the case there would be effectively no need for lawyers.

lololloolollol

Traynor Brah wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

carlsenvshikaru wrote:If so, how?

I'd like to answer your question, but it just seems too narrow. Could you broaden it a bit?

Intentionally vague so that you could interpret it however you like.

But for the sake of starting somewhere more concrete, is it possible to interpret the written law in more than one way? ...and then subsequently have it applied differently.....all while utilizing the same law? does stuff like that happen in the real world of legal practice?

If this were not the case there would be effectively no need for lawyers.

there are always many ways to interpret law. its completely subjective, in my opinion. even legal "objectivity" tests require subjective elements on numerous levels.

"even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." - shakespeare

There is no subjectivity in the law. It is all written out ahead of time, or easily and logically deduced. It is a maxim of the common law that it is inherently unjust to hold someone responsible for a crime or civil action unless they had notice that their actions were illegal. Thus, the law has taken great care to make sure that its rules are objectively knowable; otherwise, many people would be found liable for things that they could not possibly have known were illegal at the time, and the very legitimacy of the law would forever be lost.

jselson wrote:There is no subjectivity in the law. It is all written out ahead of time, or easily and logically deduced. It is a maxim of the common law that it is inherently unjust to hold someone responsible for a crime or civil action unless they had notice that their actions were illegal. Thus, the law has taken great care to make sure that its rules are objectively knowable; otherwise, many people would be found liable for things that they could not possibly have known were illegal at the time, and the very legitimacy of the law would forever be lost.

jselson wrote:There is no subjectivity in the law..

lol