Read on Twitter
So there's this thing that happens in law that's pretty profound and impactful.
It's called time.
Law changes.
It's called time.
Law changes.
A case with a seminal holding will come out.
Then, years later, that holding is clarified. Maybe expanded.
Then those holdings will be interpreted by more courts than you probably think there are, sometimes resulting in little nuances. Sometimes, full circuit splits.
Then, years later, that holding is clarified. Maybe expanded.
Then those holdings will be interpreted by more courts than you probably think there are, sometimes resulting in little nuances. Sometimes, full circuit splits.
Sometimes, a holding is in response to a statute. Sometimes, a statute is the response to a holding(hello, 230).
And sometimes, Congress or the Supreme Court decide decades later they're done with prior precedent and rewrite the law in effect.
And sometimes, Congress or the Supreme Court decide decades later they're done with prior precedent and rewrite the law in effect.
Sometimes this is good- the law as it is now looks at Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy and cringes.
Sometimes this is bad. See the history of 2A jurisprudence.
But it's all time, the changes it brings, the picture of law being large and the timelines long.
Sometimes this is bad. See the history of 2A jurisprudence.
But it's all time, the changes it brings, the picture of law being large and the timelines long.
This, however, is a big reason why your Google search can never match my law degree.
It's not that I'm smarter or better, or that my education is so good you and I have been fundamentally separated by a language I speak and you don't.
You don't know what you don't know.
It's not that I'm smarter or better, or that my education is so good you and I have been fundamentally separated by a language I speak and you don't.
You don't know what you don't know.
This isn't any great sin. Most fields have deep pools of knowledge and many instances of flux.
But it's why I'm usually right and the Google searcher is usually wrong.
But it's why I'm usually right and the Google searcher is usually wrong.
Take "fire in a crowded theatre". Famous phrase. Seminal 1A case. Going to come up high on any Google search about what is or isn't protected speech, so it's always quoted in such conversations.
It's a telltale a sign of amateurism.
It's dicta.
Schenck is no longer good law.
It's a telltale a sign of amateurism.
It's dicta.
Schenck is no longer good law.
The actual case that's good and on point about Schenck's subject matter is Brandenburg.
I know that because I was taught.
I could find out because I can Shepardize and look for recent law.
I know "fire in a crowded theatre" isn't a rule statement because I can read a case.
I know that because I was taught.
I could find out because I can Shepardize and look for recent law.
I know "fire in a crowded theatre" isn't a rule statement because I can read a case.
If you're going to Google as a lay person, you might find THE on point precedent in a single 5 minute search, especially if it's basic pillars of the republic stuff.
But you're probably just going to find a puzzle piece with no clue how to zoom out to see the big picture.
But you're probably just going to find a puzzle piece with no clue how to zoom out to see the big picture.
You're almost never going to be able to dunk on a lawyer with a quick Google search.
You don't know what you don't know, and the lawyer probably does. That's a recipe for getting dunked on yourself, which is what @AriCohn does all day hoping people learn.
Food for thought.
You don't know what you don't know, and the lawyer probably does. That's a recipe for getting dunked on yourself, which is what @AriCohn does all day hoping people learn.
Food for thought.
