5 ms·

Can anyone suggest a book a lay person can read to be better educated about how to understand/engage with rigorous law? like save for reading a civ pro, con law

Can anyone suggest a book a lay person can read to be better educated about how to understand/engage with rigorous law? like save for reading a civ pro, con law, and torts book i don't know what i should do.

anongraddebt 7y ago
How rigorous? Helpful suggestions are determined by the level/depth you want to go or by what you'd like to accomplish.
- mlevental 7y ago
  at the level of this linked article.
cormacrelf 7y ago
You could try reading a torts book. Since nobody but lawyers ever wants to do what you describe, the only books that get written are for law students and professionals. Learning it halfway isn't actually very useful. No-one wants to hear outsider perspectives on cases, they are pretty much never good, so nobody wants to create a hive of lay-yers ready to go spreading their terrible takes by giving them a book of handy hints. Case in point: most HN legal discussions. Call me elitist but truly we are blessed that more people don't try their hand. A big problem is that your natural tendency to gloss over details has to be beaten out of you, mercilessly, before anyone will trust you to make an argumentative summary. You won't make much progress with the attitude that you can just learn general principles and be slightly better at reading; you have to get comfortable diving right down to details and coming up for air later. Torts books are good because they start with the creation of torts and build, they don't have to assume too much knowledge. And the judges are often unbound by technicalities for the same reason. Hence 1L students can read them. You'll get a great impression of what it means for judges to create law. Downside: there are no new important torts cases popping up that you'd want to read.
- mlevental 7y ago
  my goal is simply to be better able to navigate the legal system, rather than to pontificate. >You won't make much progress with the attitude that you can just learn general principles and be slightly better at reading; you have to get comfortable diving right down to details and coming up for air later. it's a little presumptuous of you to imagine that 1 i intend to be so cavalier 2 that i don't already know how to be detail oriented. fwiw i took the lsat and scored 97% - while not exactly translatable to writing a summary brief i think i'm quite capable of diving into the details (if we're to believe lsac). >Torts books are good because they start with the creation of torts and build, they don't have to assume too much knowledge. suggestion for a good one? should i also get the e&e?
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > it's a little presumptuous of you to imagine that 1 i intend to be so cavalier Considering you ask for a book for a "lay person" on "rigorous law", I don't think that was presumptuous at all. cormacrelf's point is that there is no such thing. If it's written for a layperson, it can't be rigorous; conversely, if it's rigorous it requires more than a lay understanding of law. Asking for such a thing indicates an unfamiliarity with the depths that constitute rigor in the legal profession.
    - mlevental 7y ago
      >Considering you ask for a book for a "lay person" on "rigorous law", I don't think that was presumptuous at all. cormacrelf's point is that there is no such thing i laid out exactly what i thought was presumptuous 1. that i'm cavalier 2. that i'm not comfortable with detail oriented analysis. >"lay person" on "rigorous law" there is no mention of rigor in cormacrelf's post. rigor and detail are not synonymous. >If it's written for a layperson, it can't be rigorous is this a feature of "the law"? i can point to many rigorous math books that do not require a specialists understanding of the math (read: they introduce all the necessary ideas).
      - cormacrelf 7y ago
mrajcok 7y ago
https://www.amazon.com/Law-101-Everything-About-American/dp/0190866322 https://www.amazon.com/Law-101-Everything-About-American/dp/...

anongraddebt 7y ago

How rigorous? Helpful suggestions are determined by the level/depth you want to go or by what you'd like to accomplish.

mlevental 7y ago
at the level of this linked article.

cormacrelf 7y ago

You could try reading a torts book. Since nobody but lawyers ever wants to do what you describe, the only books that get written are for law students and professionals. Learning it halfway isn't actually very useful. No-one wants to hear outsider perspectives on cases, they are pretty much never good, so nobody wants to create a hive of lay-yers ready to go spreading their terrible takes by giving them a book of handy hints. Case in point: most HN legal discussions. Call me elitist but truly we are blessed that more people don't try their hand. A big problem is that your natural tendency to gloss over details has to be beaten out of you, mercilessly, before anyone will trust you to make an argumentative summary. You won't make much progress with the attitude that you can just learn general principles and be slightly better at reading; you have to get comfortable diving right down to details and coming up for air later. Torts books are good because they start with the creation of torts and build, they don't have to assume too much knowledge. And the judges are often unbound by technicalities for the same reason. Hence 1L students can read them. You'll get a great impression of what it means for judges to create law. Downside: there are no new important torts cases popping up that you'd want to read.

mlevental 7y ago
my goal is simply to be better able to navigate the legal system, rather than to pontificate. >You won't make much progress with the attitude that you can just learn general principles and be slightly better at reading; you have to get comfortable diving right down to details and coming up for air later. it's a little presumptuous of you to imagine that 1 i intend to be so cavalier 2 that i don't already know how to be detail oriented. fwiw i took the lsat and scored 97% - while not exactly translatable to writing a summary brief i think i'm quite capable of diving into the details (if we're to believe lsac). >Torts books are good because they start with the creation of torts and build, they don't have to assume too much knowledge. suggestion for a good one? should i also get the e&e?
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > it's a little presumptuous of you to imagine that 1 i intend to be so cavalier Considering you ask for a book for a "lay person" on "rigorous law", I don't think that was presumptuous at all. cormacrelf's point is that there is no such thing. If it's written for a layperson, it can't be rigorous; conversely, if it's rigorous it requires more than a lay understanding of law. Asking for such a thing indicates an unfamiliarity with the depths that constitute rigor in the legal profession.
  - mlevental 7y ago
    >Considering you ask for a book for a "lay person" on "rigorous law", I don't think that was presumptuous at all. cormacrelf's point is that there is no such thing i laid out exactly what i thought was presumptuous 1. that i'm cavalier 2. that i'm not comfortable with detail oriented analysis. >"lay person" on "rigorous law" there is no mention of rigor in cormacrelf's post. rigor and detail are not synonymous. >If it's written for a layperson, it can't be rigorous is this a feature of "the law"? i can point to many rigorous math books that do not require a specialists understanding of the math (read: they introduce all the necessary ideas).
    - cormacrelf 7y ago

mrajcok 7y ago

https://www.amazon.com/Law-101-Everything-About-American/dp/0190866322 https://www.amazon.com/Law-101-Everything-About-American/dp/...