Cardozo” and his predecessor Holmes” famous-ly reviewed the reasons one chose or rejected precedent, and boththought the practical world did provide touchstones.
This is interesting. I get where Cardozo and Holmes were coming from, but when we've studied their reasoning in class, it sometimes seemed like the "practical world" touchstones they relied on were far removed from how most people live their lives. Even today, federal judges often have backgrounds which remote from everyday people.
legislature may jump into the morass ofSLAPP law, but having writ a few times, it moves on, leaving thecourts to sort a thousand and one permutations without furtherguidance.”
This reminds me of how both legislatures and courts can be extremely hesitant to set down clear rules, even (in my view) when it would be in the public's best interest to do so.
In Nevada, the State Constitution bars members of the executive branch from holding seats in the Legislature. However, people have argued for decades as to whether this encompasses all public sector employees (extending to university professors and cops), or whether this just applies to high-level employees like people appointed by the governor.
Many lawsuits have been filed over this issue. Frustratingly, every time the State Supreme Court has taken on the issue, it has opted to issue narrow procedural rulings (e.g. dismissing or remanding cases on technicalities) instead of handing down a rule.
There is still a pending case before the State Supreme Court on this issue. Meanwhile, public employees serving in the Legislature are left in the dark as to whether their service is legal, which is bad for them, candidates who run against them, and their constituents.
ll Iwant is a case just like mine fromGeorgia!” She left in a huff, thor-oughly convinced that I did not wantto help her and half-believing that Iwas secretly in league with the insur-ance company against her,
Here, we see some of the frustration that the public has with our legal system. People who aren't trained attorneys often don't understand the "whys" of the law: Why is it so hard to find a similar case? Why did a judge rule in a way that seems to contradict common sense? Why is this city code so hard to read? I think a lawyer who works with everyday people (i.e. a local defense attorney or a lawyer who writes wills for your average Joe) must empathize with these frustrations and be patient if they want to be effective.
“Writing clearly and conciselyis not only good business practice, it should also be viewed as an ethical obligationof all attorneys.’
I would go further and argue that, when possible, legal writing should be plainer. The way documents are written--ranging from municipal codes to Supreme Court decisions--often makes it difficult for the everyday person to understand or engage with the law.
This goes for anyone who might find themselves with legal questions: small business owners, renters, tradespeople, skilled professionals (think: malpractice), homeowners, employees, consumers, etc. Unless you hire an attorney, it is easy to get stuck. If "ignorance of the law is no excuse," it should be easier to comprehend the law.