We’ve been handed a lot of cases in the past two weeks that I didn’t agree with, because we’ve been watching the evolution of the law, and that means reading lots of things written by people whose worldview is, well, rather Victorian. Literally. But we’ve recently gotten to more recent cases; cases that are presumably still law, and which reflect fairly modern sensibilities. So the leaps of logic are starting to get to me a bit more.
Last night, we had to read a particularly glaring case that I’m pretty sure is still considered relevant precedent in New York State. I spent a lot of time last night reading it, re-reading it, and re-reading it, and just generally Not Getting It. I felt really, really stupid by the end of the night, because clearly there must be something to this opinion. The logic couldn’t have been that faulty. Clearly I was missing something.
Paraphrase of conversation after class with prof: ‘Oh, clearly the judges wanted to make their point, and they were waiting for a good case to make the point with. And so they waited, and instead of a good case, they got this one. So they made it fit. The dissent probably had the better of it, really.’
So maybe my instincts aren’t completely worthless after all. That is good to know.