Legal section?

[Banana Jelly]

Since there is a Political/Ethos/Science section's, why not have a Legal Section. Where you discuss thing's about law? Or does it go to Political Mudpit?

[Romanos IV]

I'm afraid that if we are to start creating these kinds of categories, it won't stop. Imagine having a legal section, a finance section and so goes on. I think Law and general legislative theories etc probably fit to the academy.

[Viking Prince]

And specific changes to the law are current political news.

[Lysimachus]

And specific changes to the law are current political news.

And older laws belong in the VV?

[Viking Prince]

or maybe Political Academy -- It would depend on the desired discussion.

[Augustus Lucifer]

The subject matter of the law is also important. If it's civil law or judicial law, it generally can be grouped under politics. Some laws may have an ethical component, such as abortion laws, and would be better off in the EMM.

[Каие]

Technical legal discussions belong in the Academy I'd say. That's for more abstract discussion on political matters. I'd include the judiciary and legal systems under abstract politics.

[Justinian]

Since there is a Political/Ethos/Science section's, why not have a Legal Section. Where you discuss thing's about law? Or does it go to Political Mudpit?

That just sounds ... awful.

[Nazgûl Killer]

I'd actually much like to see a law section and an economics section - Perhaps in the same subforum. It would be quite interesting.

[bushbush]

laws are closely integrated with politics, economy, international affairs, history, science and etc anyways. A lot of topics in discussion forums already are related to laws. The only possibility i see is creating a forum specifically to discuss and study law at a theoretical level, going through old cases from the highest courts and debating over legal doctrines and reasonings. Honestly, not even most lawyers can do that lol. Such discussions are reserved for law profs, the best and brightest few in the business. It is unrealistic to expect a game forum full of teens to even start having meaningful debates on that.

[Simetrical]

We create subforums based on demand. There's just not enough legal discussion here to merit a dedicated subforum.

[the Black Prince]

That just sounds ... awful.

No, it sounds like heaven. All thats missing is a chocolate fountain!


TBH though, as others have said, most legal debates are going to fall within one of the other forum groups anyway.

The only possibility i see is creating a forum specifically to discuss and study law at a theoretical level, going through old cases from the highest courts and debating over legal doctrines and reasonings. Honestly, not even most lawyers can do that lol.

Really? Sounds exactly like what every law graduate in the country has to do... how else can you learn about law and more importantly understand the law than by debating the case law, doctrines and precedents. Not to mention that its exactly what every lawyer has to do if he wants to invoke the case or precedent in court.

[Banana Jelly]

Really? Sounds exactly like what every law graduate in the country has to do... how else can you learn about law and more importantly understand the law than by debating the case law, doctrines and precedents. Not to mention that its exactly what every lawyer has to do if he wants to invoke the case or precedent in court.

This is exactly, why I want a forum. Im not exactly a law professor or a lawyer (Which I plan to become), but I know how to find some case law and debate over Circuit opinions and SCOTUS precedents.

[bushbush]

Really? Sounds exactly like what every law graduate in the country has to do... how else can you learn about law and more importantly understand the law than by debating the case law, doctrines and precedents. Not to mention that its exactly what every lawyer has to do if he wants to invoke the case or precedent in court.

that's not exactly true. Law students are trained to apply facts to established rules, procedures and doctrines and serve their clients. Not to mention most lawyers don't even go to court (few lawyers are litigators); debating doctrines and studying old cases are not what they do to make money. Case books that student study are written by law profs who study law and decisions at theoretical levels.

This is exactly, why I want a forum. Im not exactly a law professor or a lawyer (Which I plan to become), but I know how to find some case law and debate over Circuit opinions and SCOTUS precedents.

I don't think most people can even understand legal opinions with much sophistication; even law students struggle with them a lot of times. If you really want to spend time on that, debate with people who might actually know these stuff. Take some pre-law classes in university.

[magickyleo101]

I like the OP's idea, but I worry that if we stick the law threads off by themselves they won't get a lot of traffic because relatively few people will go in that section. It's hard enough as it is to get people to have a discussion about legal stuff, even when it goes in the mudpit.

that's not exactly true. Law students are trained to apply facts to established rules, procedures and doctrines and serve their clients. Not to mention most lawyers don't even go to court (few lawyers are litigators); debating doctrines and studying old cases are not what they do to make money. Case books that student study are written by law profs who study law and decisions at theoretical levels.

Most of the work of lawyers (and law students) involves figuring out what the rules are so that you can apply them to a case. Since the rule as it's written down in a statute is often unclear (at least as applied to a given case), you look to "old cases from the highest courts" as well as legislative history, etc. to try to figure out what the rule actually means. You do that even if you don't go into court, since your client still expects you to advise them on the law.

[bushbush]

Most of the work of lawyers (and law students) involves figuring out what the rules are so that you can apply them to a case. Since the rule as it's written down in a statute is often unclear (at least as applied to a given case), you look to "old cases from the highest courts" as well as legislative history, etc. to try to figure out what the rule actually means. You do that even if you don't go into court, since your client still expects you to advise them on the law.

and just re-enforces what i was saying, not even many lawyers spend time actually DEBATING old court cases in theoretical levels, just apply them to new facts.

anyways, i know OP is a little eager to go to law school but i doubt most ppl care. They like Judge Judy style decisions more than legalese full of jargons that you need another dictionary just to understand them.

[Simetrical]

I don't think most people can even understand legal opinions with much sophistication; even law students struggle with them a lot of times.

anyways, i know OP is a little eager to go to law school but i doubt most ppl care. They like Judge Judy style decisions more than legalese full of jargons that you need another dictionary just to understand them.

My experience has been that legal decisions are usually very readable. If there's a written decision, it lays out the relevant laws and precedents in plain English. I'm sure I don't catch all the subtleties and implications by far, but I can certainly understand the basics of the case just fine, with no legal training.

For example, I just read through most of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Stevens. It begins like so:

Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §48 to criminalize the commercial crea-
tion, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The
statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying
conduct. It applies to any visual or auditory depiction “in which a liv-
ing animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or
killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the crea-
tion, sale, or possession takes place,” §48(c)(1). Another clause ex-
empts depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educa-
tional, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” §48(b). The
legislative background of §48 focused primarily on “crush videos,”
which feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said
to appeal to persons with a specific sexual fetish. Respondent Ste-
vens was indicted under §48 for selling videos depicting dogfighting.
He moved to dismiss, arguing that §48 is facially invalid under the
First Amendment. The District Court denied his motion, and Ste-
vens was convicted. The Third Circuit vacated the conviction and de-
clared §48 facially unconstitutional as a content-based regulation of
protected speech.
Held: Section §48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid un-
der the First Amendment. Pp. 5–20.

I think the only jargon in this is facially, and the meaning of the quote isn't changed too much if you just ignore that word.

[bushbush]

I think the only jargon in this is facially, and the meaning of the quote isn't changed too much if you just ignore that word.

that's because what you quoted was sorta like what law students call a "brief" (thus the word "Syllabus" in the first page). It is not the decision. It is a summary for the public, thus it is readable. Real decision starts at page 5.

That's part of training in law school, how to summarize complex cases with decision over dozens of pages into one page summary for studying and reviewing the facts quickly.

if you want a taste of case studies, try this part:

"The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” “[A]s ageneral matter, the First Amendment means that gov-ernment has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 48 explicitly regulates expression based on content: The statute restricts “visual [and] auditory depiction[s],” suchas photographs, videos, or sound recordings, depending on whether they depict conduct in which a living animal isintentionally harmed. As such, §48 is “‘presumptively invalid,’ and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.” United States v. Playboy Entertain-ment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 817 (2000) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992); citation omitted).
“From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amend-ment has “permitted restrictions upon the content ofspeech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382–383. These “historic and traditional categories longfamiliar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment)—including obscen-ity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defa-mation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254–255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citi-zens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal con-duct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)—are “well-defined and narrowly limited classesof speech, the prevention and punishment of which havenever been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571–572 (1942)."

[Banana Jelly]

that's because what you quoted was sorta like what law students call a "brief" (thus the word "Syllabus" in the first page). It is not the decision. It is a summary for the public, thus it is readable. Real decision starts at page 5.

That's part of training in law school, how to summarize complex cases with decision over dozens of pages into one page summary for studying and reviewing the facts quickly.

if you want a taste of case studies, try this part:

Easy... Just because there are a bit numbers, which are subsections, paragraph, which labels them. They quote other precedent's, (Ashcroft is a free speech organization, where I can tell you of one of the famous cases such as Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition), then quote some part's as part of there discussion. It took me a month to get used to this language, and now it really doesn't seem hard. Educated people = World is much better. They just show plenty of previous precedent's, you don't really have to go through all of them, since you get to know the idea in the context in which there saying it.

Just because people aren't law students or professer's yet, doesn't mean they cant understand the language. I may not understand the trial procedures and how to file appeals, but that's not a job for the forum, it's just to debate over the ruling's, and as to whether what your view would be.

Just because your going to the top 10 law schools doesn't mean you could show off




Debating with people here, in cover of the internet, are much better then debating in real life, as you can take your time to make your argument.

[Banana Jelly]

I like the OP's idea, but I worry that if we stick the law threads off by themselves they won't get a lot of traffic because relatively few people will go in that section. It's hard enough as it is to get people to have a discussion about legal stuff, even when it goes in the mudpit.

I agree with you. Many people cant understand the language of decisions like this, since they often dont bother to debate in legal things. Yet they dont understand politicians make law's, and politicians = law = politician = law, they both are dependant on each other.