|
Welcome to Eben Moglen's Course Wiki
|
|||||||||||
My Links
My Personal DataNote: The email shown here, as well as your Columbia UNI will only be visible to yourself and administrators. If you wish to change this email, please use: ChangePasswordMy Personal PreferencesUn-comment preferences variables to activate them (remove the #-sign). Help and details on preferences variables are available in TWikiPreferences.
Related Topics
NotesHolmes: The Path of the Law Lawyers exist to predict when the state will act on people through the courts A “duty”, for example, is a prediction that someone will suffer consequences if he breaches it Although the law is seeped in moral language, it is not moral because: Law is designed to force people to follow it whether they believe in the morals or not Not all laws are morally good Morals don’t even always limit law The law taxes and penalizes, but from the bad man’s point of view, they are the same thing In contract law, people are misled to finding it moral to not breach And similarly in tort, where “malicious” doesn’t mean malicious in a moral sense What causes the law to change and grow Logic is not the only thing, as some things are qualitatively valued by individuals Judges act based on what they value socially, and they should express that more clearly Tradition also shapes law--history explains law: “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV” Lawyers need to learn economics to be able to make good policy decisions. They ought also study jurisprudence: the ability to generalize and analogize facts to other sets of facts. These are key to prediction Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach Question: do we find our laws in nature or create them Example case: Tauza In this case, the court asked where a corporation was without considering policy questions (e.g., difficulty for P and D to sue in X state, etc.). Instead, it was literally trying to figure out where it was, even though it’s obviously a legal fiction And it did, determining an office in NY meant it could be sued there Transcendental Nonsense means, a legal fiction. Judges pretending legal things like corporations actually exist in the world and can be placed The problem: this makes it easy for judges to forget the fictions they’re dealing with are fictional. And they don’t think about policy: how the decisions affect real people Another example is a lawyer for a union defending it against tort liability for its union members not because liability would ruin all union activities, but because a union is not a person because it is unincorporated We must not justify legal rules in legal terms because that’s circular. There must be an empirical or ethical basis An example is protecting a trademark because it is economically valuable. And it is valuable because it can be legally protected And this is based in courts “thingifying” property, which has no basis, but is assumed to be found in nature This just makes lay people have no idea what courts do This whole process ignores whether having trademarks is even a good thing for society. And it’s just legal reasoning masquerading as legal prejudice/inequality Same thing with valuing public utilities; courts value them, but their value depends on what the court values them at Same thing with what does “due process of law” mean? SCOTUS says it means whatever we said it meant in the past Since legal concepts are not bounded in ethical or empirical foundations, they are a separate form of transcendental nonsense that cannot be challenged by ethics or empiricism The solution: the functional approach Functionalism, in simple terms, asks why is something significant. It attacks dogmas which are not based in practical experience The only meaningful questions is how do courts decide cases and how ought they The essence is that all concepts must be based in real experience CRITIQUE: What is “real experience” this article assumes such a thing exists and apparently is universal Law = the prophecies of what judges will do Holmes says laws should be signposts telling us certain facts reside here The article thinks that we are moving in a functional direction away from just restating the dogma of the past in legal principle CRITIQUE: It seems to me the issue isn’t that legal concepts don’t reflect facts, but the utility of those facts is not significant The functional approach should be applied to: (1) The definition of law Prophecies of what the court will do, in fact -Holmes We don’t care if this definition is correct, we care that it’s useful And it will demonstrate what the ethics of the court are (2) The nature of legal rules and concepts Hobbes thinks law is the state using its power Coke thinks it the perfection of reason and is moral Blackstone stuck both together, leading to confusion With this understanding of law, asking, for example, is there a contract, confuses what exists with what should exist (3) The theory of legal decision Beyond the yes/no decision, what makes up decision? Decisions have social determinants, and are not just what the judge ate that day It is very predictable, and if everything surrounding those decisions was not predictable (the sheriff will enforce it, there are appellate procedures), nobody would care who won the case The main (but incomplete) predictive factors: Judges act based on their wealth class Judges act based on if they worked for a special interest before Judges are impacted by eloquence of counsel This is why law students need to be detectives, know the political bent of judges, etc. (4) The role of legal criticism We need more consequentialist criticism of current legal rules This criticism is a critical cohort of the objective functionalist method
For privacy reasons, some fields in this form are not visible when viewing the page.
To update either your Columbia email or UNI information, simply edit the page
|
Navigation |
||||||||||
