Monday, May 8, 2017


THEORETICAL JURISPRUDENCE

A quick true story.  In my first year Spanish course in high school the teacher asked who knows the word for umbrella.  I said parasol.  She said wrong.  I said well my  mother was from Nicaragua and that is the word she used.  The teacher said parasol is only used when referring to an umbrella used to block the sun.  I said, "you did not say which type umbrella."  Well I was sent to the principal for being honest.  That is the day I learned thin skinned poorly educated people cannot be reasoned with.

All patients at the VA who will undergo bariatric surgery must under go complete projective psychiatric testing to determine if they are a good candidate.  The last I read nearly every federal appellate court has rejected as junk science the diagnostic manual used in psychiatry.  Every couple of years they change the elements of the various mental illnesses and their definition.  This means in the previous manual they had it wrong.  The permissible testimony is the psychiatrist can describe the patient's condition without labels based on DSM.  Some judges still let it in, because the chances of reversal are slim.

Law is like parasol and paraguas.  It can be that precise, or purely subjective with an objective element.  So when I was answering the nearly 400 questions, I took the time to correct all of the grammatical mistakes, and added notes as to why about half of the questions were illogical, had multiple meanings because of the endless number of grammatical mistakes, and were formed with such low intellect they were the equivalent of asking how often do you beat your wife?  Example - do you vomit after you binge eat?  The question implies you binge eat.  The psychologist was not amused.  I told him apparently my honestly was something he was not interested in.  I warned him the  entire process was junk science and I was a terrible candidate for the test.  He was like my Spanish teacher - too perfect to admit, being specific is essential to understanding.  For the record, I cannot see my own grammatical errors. but others jump out at me big time.

I have no fear of the results.  My dietitian gave me a great review of 100%  compliant with all of my assignments and requisite weight loss.

YES A LOT OF MUMBO JUMBO

But in theoretical jurisprudence, you will never move an inch if you cannot read and comprehend mumbo jumbo.

My master's thesis was "The Juridical Methodology of the Supreme Court."  My chair who was well published in Maxist law  and heading to UT law school the same year I was heading to U of H, challenged my title claiming he had never heard the word juridical and was not sure if it was a word.  We had a good relationship and in  the same way my undergraduate mentor taught me critical thinking, my chair taught me how to better organize my thoughts.  So I said it is in the dictionary.  I was happy he did not take my response personal.  The term Juridical Methodology is now commonly used.

I studied nearly every U.S. Supreme Court opinion, read the Constitutional Minutes which are a summary of the constitutional debates, read Blackstone [ my most treasured material possession I have other than Buster - thank you. I can no longer read it sipping Makers Mark.  I still read it several days a week, save the Makers Mark - sorry side note - it is an inside message] and nearly every notable King's Bench Decision before writing my hypothesis.  It was 12 hour days for a year.

I learned our Supreme Court evolved based on the times in which we live.  I then proved it by aligning public opinion with changes in the Court's opinions, or major newspaper oped pieces.  It is how the law works in an ever evolving democracy with an ever evolving population.

IF I HAD MY WAY I WOULD HIDE AWAY IN CUZCO, PERU JUST READING LAW AND WRITING

I have read entire large sections of the Digest of Justinian, which is a summary of Roman law.  In the Digest you see the evolution of law.  I wish I had my own copy, but I do not.  Maybe soon.  I need a copy I buy so I can mark it up in pencil. Because Blackstone was a gift I make notes on index cards referring to the page number.  When I go back and read it again, I turn the index cards one at a time so I can see my notes and make changes as my understanding evolves.

CONTRARY TO THE INTELLECTUALLY INEPT ORIGINALISTS LAW IS NOT STAGNANT

I am not just that bright and  thought original intent meant the original intent of the authors.  No, in jurisprudence terms it means words of substance are locked in time.  It does not matter what the author meant.  Can anyone honestly say our Founding Fathers who learned from some of the greatest minds of the Age of Enlightenment believed Liberty is a term stagnant in meaning?  Not possible.  


WHAT I LEARNED IN THEORETICAL JURISPRUDENCE IS, YOU MOVE LAW AT A PACE WITH SOCIETY

The majority cannot rule over the minority, but the minority must increase in its numbers and awareness to get the Court to change its understanding of liberty.  If you look to the gay rights movement this is exactly what happened.  

LAW AND SOCIETY

Oh my dream of teaching Law and Society and how law evolves, will never happen.  Our universities are filled with way too many intellectually inept know nothings.  I'm not sure if I had a child where I would send them to for university studies.  I'm not sure there is a real university left in the U.S.  I am told unbiased classical training is still possible in the U.K.

WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE LAW

Well I know less than more.  If you call me and ask me a UCC question I will say, "do not know, do not care."  The same for bankruptcy law.  But when you live in a world of theoretical jurisprudence you see the law at a higher substantive level than most judges can ever imagine.  It creates problems. Judges like it simple.  They like the difference between parasol and paraguas.  Well, liberty is more complex.  Due process is more complex, but also simpler.  The concept of fairness should not be difficult to envision, but few judges consider it relevant.  

SO THE PSYCHOLOGIST

Well I am sure he will write a stinging summary on me.  Do I care? - nope - why the hell would I give respect to a profession which labels and medicates people.  they are junk scientists.  These are the same judgmental idiots who labeled homosexuality a mental health disease.  In 20 years there diagnostic manual as it exists today will not exist.  This does not mean depression does not exist?  But it does mean if you claim to hear spirits you will be labeled and medicated and in 20 years when they prove spirits are real they will say "my bad."  What science do they have spirits do not exist?  None, but as junk scientists who label and medicate what would they care about science?  I have met my surgeon and if the psychologist writes a bad report on me it will be on him, because my surgeon has already told me after meeting me, I am the perfect candidate.

THE IRONY

I can no more prove as correct my higher level substantive understanding of the law in the context of our society and democracy, which is different  for different countries, than psychologists can prove any of their labels are verifiable.  What I can prove is, fair minded people know fairness when they see it.  Yes, a lot of mumbo jumbo, but that is the essence of theoretical.

Oh. law - it does not exist.  Law is about money and if you do not have it the majority of you cannot win unless you have a judge who can perceive the higher purpose of law and ignore your inability to hire competent counsel.

SORRY, I NEEDED A POST FOR ME





No comments: