"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

No, I haven't to any great degree. But I have studied some case law on
subjects that were of interest to me. I especially enjoy the reasoning
process that is often used. On the other hand, I get steamed when
sleazy defense attorneys attempt to use legal loopholes to win cases.

In any case, I can be reasonably sure that they aren't off in the
outer limits when they present their arguments. Their arguments are
well thought out, reasonable, relevant, and, most importantly, reflect
reality.

This is in sharp contrast to the strawman arguments which are
presented here.

Dave


Reading case law is not the same as the transcripts - what the people
actually say. Judge: "Are you saying that if insert strawman here, he
should be considered in violation of the law?" This is how real people
debate the law and test its limits. Listen to NPR a little more often and
you'll hear these things. I'm sure there are web-based sources.

Your statement about being "reasonably sure" is, in fact, completely wrong.
Legal scholars are OFTEN in the outer limits when debating law. They MUST
push debates to the extreme to test validity because if they don't, it's
fairly certain that someone else will. Witness the use by prosecutors of the
RICO statutes in situations for which it was never intended.