Long time...
Well well well well well...looks like I haven't updated in a while. Guess it's high time I change that. So what do you want to know? What's new with me? Well..... oh, and..... um......::::scratching head:::
School is school. Work is work. Oh yeah. That's news, I got a raise. (No C&B, not that kind) :::shaking head::: More money means more gooder. Speaking of work, I'm fortunate to be able to get listen to my XM radio while working, and TMBG (Birdhouse in your Soul) and REM (can't remember, but one I had never heard before) came on today, back to back (and a belly to belly!! [inside joke]). You don't get too much TMBG on regular radio. But I've heard Triangle Man, Istanbul, and many other TMBG songs on this channel, Lucy, for those keeping track.
On the other front, school is slow and steady. Not enough classes to take at night, but I'll get there eventually.
I used to like sciences. Not as much as I liked math, but I did. Even though in 8th grade, my model rocket was the only one that didn't work (it was 3 feet tall and right as I pushed the ignition the wind blew it over and the engine ignited the entire rocket, and my week's worth of work became quite the fireball spectacle). Point? I don't like the sciences as much anymore. Certain sciences do, but natural and life sciences, I don't. Why? I've been racking my brain for a little while trying to figure it out. Maybe because "regular" sciences aren't, for the most part, arguable. When you have an experiment, you have two ideas - null and alternative hypothesis - but the experiment proves one over and above the other, most of the time. The science of law however, you always have two ideas, but there is almost always support for both. And the theory isn't based on an experiment. It's based on another person's interpretation of that same issue. Maybe its the human factor. The ability to make mistakes, and the ability of man to correct those same mistakes. Baseball, my favorite sport to play and watch, is all about the human factor. Umpires' strike zone, judgment calls. It's all human. There's no replay. All eyes and ears. Law has the same human factor. Judges, some good, most bad. Juries. All bad. Find me an attorney that wants his case in front of a jury, and I'll tell you that attorney is playing with fire while standing in gasoline. But its the human factor. The judge that agress with the law you're arguing but hates you. Or vice versa. The appellate court that doesn't give a damn about you or your case, just the law and/or the politics. And the U.S Supreme Court that only cares about the politics. :)
You can argue your case and your supporting law, and it doesn't matter if the facts support your case or not, you can still win with your ability. So does that mean I like it when the wrong guy wins? No, but O.J. and Michael are innocent. :) Sometimes your case is lost because your idea hasn't had its time yet. Granted, there aren't any segregation issues or abortion issues (there's no way that ever gets overturned), but one day, some appellate clerk will dig up the lone voice of opposition from 30 years ago and it will then become the law of the land. (I swear I heard that somewhere before, but I can't figure out where.) The history. The precedent. The evolution of ideas. The mistakes. The things we got right. The things unimagined by the Framers. The things not yet imagined by anyone.
Perhaps one day I'll sit down and really put my thoughts together on the legal profession and lawyers. This was just, well, blog worthy.
Quite the tangent there. My apologies. Work is work and school is school.
Til next time, and lets hope that it's not so long between posts. :)
School is school. Work is work. Oh yeah. That's news, I got a raise. (No C&B, not that kind) :::shaking head::: More money means more gooder. Speaking of work, I'm fortunate to be able to get listen to my XM radio while working, and TMBG (Birdhouse in your Soul) and REM (can't remember, but one I had never heard before) came on today, back to back (and a belly to belly!! [inside joke]). You don't get too much TMBG on regular radio. But I've heard Triangle Man, Istanbul, and many other TMBG songs on this channel, Lucy, for those keeping track.
On the other front, school is slow and steady. Not enough classes to take at night, but I'll get there eventually.
I used to like sciences. Not as much as I liked math, but I did. Even though in 8th grade, my model rocket was the only one that didn't work (it was 3 feet tall and right as I pushed the ignition the wind blew it over and the engine ignited the entire rocket, and my week's worth of work became quite the fireball spectacle). Point? I don't like the sciences as much anymore. Certain sciences do, but natural and life sciences, I don't. Why? I've been racking my brain for a little while trying to figure it out. Maybe because "regular" sciences aren't, for the most part, arguable. When you have an experiment, you have two ideas - null and alternative hypothesis - but the experiment proves one over and above the other, most of the time. The science of law however, you always have two ideas, but there is almost always support for both. And the theory isn't based on an experiment. It's based on another person's interpretation of that same issue. Maybe its the human factor. The ability to make mistakes, and the ability of man to correct those same mistakes. Baseball, my favorite sport to play and watch, is all about the human factor. Umpires' strike zone, judgment calls. It's all human. There's no replay. All eyes and ears. Law has the same human factor. Judges, some good, most bad. Juries. All bad. Find me an attorney that wants his case in front of a jury, and I'll tell you that attorney is playing with fire while standing in gasoline. But its the human factor. The judge that agress with the law you're arguing but hates you. Or vice versa. The appellate court that doesn't give a damn about you or your case, just the law and/or the politics. And the U.S Supreme Court that only cares about the politics. :)
You can argue your case and your supporting law, and it doesn't matter if the facts support your case or not, you can still win with your ability. So does that mean I like it when the wrong guy wins? No, but O.J. and Michael are innocent. :) Sometimes your case is lost because your idea hasn't had its time yet. Granted, there aren't any segregation issues or abortion issues (there's no way that ever gets overturned), but one day, some appellate clerk will dig up the lone voice of opposition from 30 years ago and it will then become the law of the land. (I swear I heard that somewhere before, but I can't figure out where.) The history. The precedent. The evolution of ideas. The mistakes. The things we got right. The things unimagined by the Framers. The things not yet imagined by anyone.
Perhaps one day I'll sit down and really put my thoughts together on the legal profession and lawyers. This was just, well, blog worthy.
Quite the tangent there. My apologies. Work is work and school is school.
Til next time, and lets hope that it's not so long between posts. :)
posted by Patrick at 10:11 PM
2 Comments:
It's interesting to see where your love of the law comes from. One thing I've always appreciated about American law is how, starting from the Constitution on down, it seeks to manage that human element you speak of -- not eliminate it, but manage it.
I'm surprised you didn't have any comment when I made that post on our blog about the Supreme Court. I'd be curious to hear what your opinion is on the evolution of judicial law of which you speak in your post.
I've been throwing around some ideas in my head re: your advise and consent hearing. I hadn't had time to completely read it until today. Give me a couple days to prepare my feelings on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home