3 ms·
Those are meaningless questions. It's trivial to think of 100's of hypos and go 'is this legal? Is that legal?' 1000's of first years do that every year because
by roel_v 10y ago
Those are meaningless questions. It's trivial to think of 100's of hypos and go 'is this legal? Is that legal?' 1000's of first years do that every year because they think that's what being a lawyer is about, not to mention the amateurs. A judge however considers one specific case, with arguments as to what is the objective reality as presented by the parties. 'What ifs' don't matter. Law is not a closed rule-based system. 'Loopholes' (I loathe thay word) are not like buffer overflows.
(have law degree, not practising lawyer)
- jwatte 10y agoThis is why companies with weak crypto can perhaps avoid liability for disclosure, because the crypto shows that they "intended to" protect the information, and it's not zero work to break, even if it's /now/ cheap.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- j2kun 10y agoWait, but aren't so many of the important US supreme court rulings so contested because they have to consider the ramifications, e.g., of whether a ruling will take power away from the state and give it to the federal government? How is that not a "what if" scenario? Isn't the Baston rule just a big loophole?
- evgen 10y agoAppellate courts get to make such considerations, but not the lower court. The lower court judge can say "I believe the facts say X and therefore law Y should apply" but the appellate courts can say that the interpretation or Y or even law Y itself is incorrect and tell the lower court judge to reconsider the outcome of using law Y in that manner given facts X.
- j2kun 10y agoWait, but aren't so many of the important US supreme court rulings so contested because they have to consider the ramifications, e.g., of whether a ruling will take power away from the state and give it to the federal government? How is that not a "what if" scenario? Isn't the Baston rule just a big loophole?