“As some who legalizes only as an amateur I honestly find baffling the whole idea that a law school would teach students any particular nation or jurisdiction’s

“As some who legalizes only as an amateur I honestly find baffling the whole idea that a law school would teach students any particular nation or jurisdiction’s legal code. Shouldn’t they be learning concepts, rhetoric, and logic? Isn’t a case law just a tool? I think mere technicians would learn legal precedent. University-educated lawyers should learn the underlying theory with which they can learn ANY case law. I am a software engineer. I didn’t learn RequireJS or CommonJS in school. I mean yes, I did use them and was trained in them. But they were just tools. But no one would say ‘what JS module system should we teach our students?’ And good thing—the ones I used in school are now obsolete! Even as a software engineer I can read court opinions. Man I’d be disappointed if I went into a law school and they’re debating something as low level as what jurisdiction’s laws and court decisions to teach me, rather than teaching me how to interpret any law or legal argument and how to design new ones.” I hear what you’re saying, software engineer, but avoiding any particular set of case law would leave these lawyers extremely unprepared for professional practice—not just because they will likely work in one of those legal codes otherwise covered by the school, but because those codes and the arguments that shaped them constitute an immense base of empirical knowledge about legal rhetoric, logic, and concepts that simply cannot be replicated in a vacuum. Accordingly, those excellent judges and legislators who do the novel work of lawmaking and legal argument are _not_ reduced to technicians by their knowledge of case law. In fact, I’d say it’s the opposite: it is impossible to have a good grasp of the theoretical underpinnings without also having extreme facility in one legal code or another as a ‘native tongue’.