Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Ray
Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Lawyers' opinions
are still just opinions no matter how many of them are given. A
single
unappealed decision by a low-level judge would be a precedent that
could
throw all 20 scholarly opinions out the window.
If I correctly understood what a first-year law student once told
me... and if _he_ correctly understood what _he_ was told... even a
Supreme Court (of the U. S.) ruling is just a set of opinions about
an individual case... and all cases are different.
So, when a lawyer says "thus-and-such is the law because of thus-and-
such Supreme Court ruling," this is shorthand for saying "if your
particular case were taken to court, the lawyers would probably point
out to the judge that there was a Supreme Court ruling in a somewhat
similar case. I predict that the judge would think the opinions of a
Supreme Court justices are legally sound. And I your case is similar
enough that the judge will feel that their opinions pretty much apply
in your case. Therefore I predict that it is very likely that the
judge will rule thus-and-such way in your case."
Absolutely! If you read enough law cases you soon see that half the
lawyers are arguing (perhaps indirectly) why the case is similar to one
already decided by the Supreme Courtwhile the other half is arguing to
distinguish it. The statements that we make in most areas of life are
highly probibilistic, and absolute truth is seldom encountered.
Ec