Law School Discussion


« on: January 04, 2009, 06:28:48 PM »
Does anybody know about the profusionism movement or the people who were called pro-fusionist?

Help explain it to me so I can explain it to my professor.  I need all the help I can get. 

I'm a comparative literature student and an author I'm writing on, Serene Conneeley, is a profusionist according to the biographical blurb in a quarterly I've got.

Re: profusionism
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2009, 10:52:38 AM »
I figured it out.  It seems this idea of profusionism, and the people who believe in it, profusionists, has to do with blending, somehow, two types of law: equity, which is a legal principle, derived from the English common law tradition, and has to do with a court's power to do justice, as opposed to offering monetary relief; and "statutory law," laws enacted by a legislature, and "common law," the principles established by judges when they decide cases.  So a profusionist is the opposite of an anti fusionist. But that still doesn't answer the whole question.

Can anyone tell me about equity more in depth or statutory law and common law.  It doesn't have to do with statutory rape law, does it? Why would someone be profusionist, in favor of blending, rather than anti fusionist, opposed to blending? 

I don't think this has anything to do with the fanatical, scientific anti evolutionist poly biological mass profusionism stuff or the deleted wikipidia article on profusionism. 

C'mon.  Help me please.  I can see that 66 of you have read the post.  Why does no one post?

Elephant Lee

  • ****
  • 4664
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: profusionism
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2009, 02:13:58 PM »