[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: e$
In message <[email protected]> "James A. Donald" writes:
> I wrote:
> > > You made a claim concerning our judicial and legal system,
> > > a claim so far out of contact with reality that nobody can be bothered
> > > to refute you.
> >
> Jim Dixon writes
> > I made no claim. I asked a question. I quote the exchange in its
> > entirety:
> >
> > > Jim Dixon says:
> > > > In message <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
> > > > > [Perry's claim deleted]
> > > > On what experience or observation do you base these rather extreme
> > > > remarks?
> Sigh.
>
> Let me introduce you to the real world.
>
> Perry was expressing, in his usual intemperate fashion, the
> dominant legal philosophy that is known to lawyers as
> "legal realism". If you are a judge, and you are not
> a "legal realist" you are likely to wind up in charge
> of the night court at Upeka.
>
> "Legal realism" is not in fact a form of realism but of nominalism.
While the claim made may indeed be a form of nominalism, you seem to
miss the point entirely. I made no claim. Perry made the claim.
I simply asked him what he based it on.
You then commented that my claim (which I hadn't made) was far out of
touch with reality. You now offer to introduce me to the real world.
The world that you are introducing me to is something more like a
funhouse, with everything upside down and backwords.
I think that I have a good functioning understanding of how the US
judicial system works. I have been in court on a number of
occasions in various roles. The outcome of the system has a large
random component -- we have won cases that I thought that we would
or even should lose, and sometimes the opposite occurred. The results
are also often skewed one way or the other because of personal or
group bias. But we are getting pretty good at playing the system,
so we generally win these days.
If someone were to ask me to describe one part or another of the
US system of government, I might or might not have a formed opinion.
If I have a formed opinion and someone asks me a reasonable question
like, "on what experience or observation do you base these beliefs?"
I generally have no difficulty in answering the question. The
answer might be tediously complex, because I do not believe the
world is simple.
This subthread began with my observing that if e$ were handled
carefully, it would not violate the provisions of the Constitution
against alternate currencies. Perry referred to this as 'splitting
hairs' and then claimed that the legal system was a charade and that
'they' would reach any conclusions that they liked. Shortly after
his outburst someone more rational asked a lawyer who asked his wife
who is a lawyer specializing in securities. Her opinion was pretty
much the same as mine. Other sources that I have checked with seem
to have much the same opinion. My narrow observation seems to be
correct. You and Perry have made claims about the general
functioning of the US legal system. The only claims that I have
made are two paragraphs back.
--
Jim Dixon