Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Legal Reasoning  (Read 171749 times)

horwitz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #210 on: July 26, 2007, 05:46:30 AM »

The faculty of all law schools are beyond the pale, with no known exception. Its brightest members, geniuses, have been made into oblivious dumbasses and mental cripples by cult indoctrination. If you find law school unpleasant, you are correct. It is a painful, harsh cult indoctrination process. They are trying to break your connection to the outside world, to the outside express purposes of the law, you thought you were going to learn to serve. They want to crush you with humiliation, 80 hrs/week of pointless work, incomprehensible gibberish, worthless garbage from 1250 AD, pointless competition, and shunning of the dissident. They have a Lincolnesque officer of the court ethos to point to when you object to their methods. It is all a lie. The faculty are harsh cult enforcers.

All goals of all subjects of the law are in utter failure. The sole success of the law is to generate wealth for the lawyer. The biggest victims of the law are minorities. Beyond the process of stress indoctrination, is the criminal cult enterprise content. On every page of every Hornbook, you will find, the supernatural, mind reading, future forecasting, a belief that 12 strangers can detect truth or lies by using their gut feelings, and the best of all, the word, "reasonable."

The legal profession is a waking nightmare for the nation. Everyone will grow to hate lawyers as they set about to destroy America. The legal profession will be openly bashed and derided to lawyers' faces, at social occasions. No one will feel it necessary to show them manners, as if they were convicted felons. They will hate themselves, for good reason.


The problem is, they don't have your ambition. They want you to lead, and then they resent you.

agape

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #211 on: July 30, 2007, 05:17:09 PM »

Judges make their decisions primarily based upon emotional reactions to the facts presented to them in a case, and then use precedent to rationalize their decision. Law's indeterminacy and contingency lie in the fact that precedent can be interpreted in numerous ways, and that it is often used as justification for a position held by the judge long before he even considers precedent. Accordingly, from a psychoanalytic point of view, judicial decisions are often made based on the personal prejudices and emotional reactions of judges with respect to a set of facts, and the process of "legal reasoning" is merely a mechanism employed by the Ego to rationalize the Id's irrational prejudices. But why is there such a need for rationalization? Two possibilities present themselves. First, the legal profession and society as a whole idealize the law as the perfect father-figure, and in their search for stability, demand that the law be a coherent and logical set of rules derived from reason. In other words, the Ego seeks to use the law as a further means of bringing order to the chaotic and passionate world of the Id. Second, the legal profession engages in endless rationalization as a means for alleviating the threat of punishment imposed on the Ego for its failure to incorporate the commands of the Super-Ego's "inward court of law" in laws governing members of society. In other words, if the Ego were to acknowledge explicitly that judicial decision-making is primarily an Id-driven process, then it would be subject to severe punishment from the Super-Ego for allowing instinctual impulses to reach conscious awareness, and worst of all, be the basis for law.


So basically, Strong Id, Strong Superego, Suffering Ego ?

flouride

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #212 on: July 30, 2007, 08:39:33 PM »
Quote
[...] Of the defense mechanisms, psychoanalysts have put forward displacement as their number one choice for explaining crime. A few criminologists have explored the others, most notably, reaction formation, but the list remains largely unexhausted because, essentially, the ideas are untestable. In Displacement, both Id and Superego are so strong and Ego is so weak that person settles for second best or any available substitute (something better than nothing). In Reaction-Formation both Id and Superego are so strong that person does the opposite of both, sometimes identifying with aggressors.



Judges make their decisions primarily based upon emotional reactions to the facts presented to them in a case, and then use precedent to rationalize their decision. Law's indeterminacy and contingency lie in the fact that precedent can be interpreted in numerous ways, and that it is often used as justification for a position held by the judge long before he even considers precedent. Accordingly, from a psychoanalytic point of view, judicial decisions are often made based on the personal prejudices and emotional reactions of judges with respect to a set of facts, and the process of "legal reasoning" is merely a mechanism employed by the Ego to rationalize the Id's irrational prejudices. But why is there such a need for rationalization? Two possibilities present themselves. First, the legal profession and society as a whole idealize the law as the perfect father-figure, and in their search for stability, demand that the law be a coherent and logical set of rules derived from reason. In other words, the Ego seeks to use the law as a further means of bringing order to the chaotic and passionate world of the Id. Second, the legal profession engages in endless rationalization as a means for alleviating the threat of punishment imposed on the Ego for its failure to incorporate the commands of the Super-Ego's "inward court of law" in laws governing members of society. In other words, if the Ego were to acknowledge explicitly that judicial decision-making is primarily an Id-driven process, then it would be subject to severe punishment from the Super-Ego for allowing instinctual impulses to reach conscious awareness, and worst of all, be the basis for law.


So basically, Strong Id, Strong Superego, Suffering Ego ?


Does this mean that lawyers are criminals who don't have the balls to do what their unconscious urges them to do, and want instead the "power of the law" on their side to justify/rationalize/hide their actions? 

sinus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #213 on: August 01, 2007, 08:56:59 PM »
That's been said about cops, not lawyers, flouride; after all, lawyers don't kill people.
Hypocrite reader -- my likeness -- my brother!

Shall We Dance

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #214 on: August 03, 2007, 08:47:16 PM »

Hypocrite reader -- my likeness -- my brother!


;)

Elaine Cho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #215 on: August 07, 2007, 09:55:21 PM »
From Charles Baudelaire's "Les fleurs du mal," sinus?

alexa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #216 on: August 09, 2007, 04:56:15 AM »
US law protects the rich under a fascist, police-state regime. The US has violated knowingly every single trade agreement it has made with other countries. In other words, its "law" applies and is enforced to others but not to itself. So, the rest of the world is beginning to care less and less about American legal decisions..., (or should I say 'dictates'?)

You corrupt American judges, you idiotic Christian fundamentalist Creationist President, with your so-called "War against Evil"... Don't be surprised if most countries of the world start ignoring all your dictatorial spewings..

Screw US law, US jingoism, US court corruption, maintained by senile judges, and your whole corrupt dictatorial, fascist system hiding under a guise of democracy, sugared by propagandist euphemisms spewed by a red-neck, right-winged government to protect big businesses. Make your own legal hell and live in it. You deserve it after laying down and rolling over when the Patr-Idiot Act was forced upon your wussified wills. The rest of us couldn't care less. So whatever YOUR courts decide about YOUR conceptions of YOUR patents, they do not necessarily apply to us, unless of course we become just as wussified. All we have to do is say no.

sourcelaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #217 on: August 10, 2007, 03:44:48 AM »

Insane and corrupt judges dole out life-and-death sentences with as much thought as a butcher would give to carving a side of beef. Attorneys view the courtroom as an arena where they can grapple with an opponent without concern for the cost in human pain and tears. And those who genuinely care about their clients are foiled at every turn by the deeply-rooted hypocrisy and cynicism that defines American law.


No doubt about it -- the typical criminal courtroom is populated by fat cat lawyers, inept prosecutors, senile judges, and corrupt cops.

K a r i

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #218 on: August 10, 2007, 05:26:25 AM »

From Charles Baudelaire's "Les fleurs du mal," sinus?


Exactly!

... If rape or arson, poison, or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life —
It is because we are not bold enough!

(Roy Campbell's translation)

aver

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #219 on: August 11, 2007, 12:32:54 AM »

That's been said about cops, not lawyers, flouride; after all, lawyers don't kill people.


I don't think flouride was referring to killing when talking about "doing what their unconcious urges them to do"
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.