Read on Twitter
This is a really important point, and it's something I probably should have mentioned before.
The best answers to legal questions don't always match the answers that courts today are likely to give. There are a lot of reasons for that - too many to get into here. https://twitter.com/CBHessick/status/1351180981378682882
The best answers to legal questions don't always match the answers that courts today are likely to give. There are a lot of reasons for that - too many to get into here. https://twitter.com/CBHessick/status/1351180981378682882
I've seen the difference between lawyers and academics expressed sometimes (mostly by lawyers) in terms like 'lawyers talk about the law as it is; academics talk about the law as it should be.'
There's a kernel of truth in there, but it doesn't really do justice to either group.
There's a kernel of truth in there, but it doesn't really do justice to either group.
Academics often look at the law as it is; lawyers often have to argue for what the law should be in a given case. We're using overlapping toolsets to address similar problems and we each benefit from the work of the other.
How much of a benefit there is, of course, is often the subject of debates that are far fiercer than arguments over the upstate/downstate borderline. So we'll skip that for the moment.
The reason I mention all of this is because I know most of you aren't lawyers or academics, so you might not be as aware of this as those of us who work in the area are.
I can't give you any rules for figuring out which is which. Best I can do is tell you that if I'm doing a thread explaining the law, I'm going to be doing my best to give you the law as it is. Where that differs from the law as I want it to be, I'll try to tell you.
