We have all heard about Lawyers arguing their case. The judge listens to the argument. The Supreme court listens to the argument. In the end both will issue an opinion but call it a ruling. And that is the heart of the matter.

I used to believe that lawyers were arguing about the law, whether it was fair or not, that sort of thing. They presented evidence to prove or disprove their argument. I have to come to realize that isn’t the case. What they are arguing about is semantics.

The objective is to have your opponent concede to your meaning of a word or phrase. For instance, all persons. Does that really mean everyone? Well now, that all depends, and that is where the argument begins. Define a person? Keep in mind we are currently arguing over the definition of a woman.

The successful attorney imposes their own interpretation of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences, as they apply to the law. They win the argument! Sometimes they win by sheer persistence, just wear their opponent down. It’s the strength of personal conviction that wins the case for them.

At other times they will simply rely upon what was said in the past. We call that precedent. Judges employ clerks to do research for them. Basically, they want to know what was said about this case/situation in the past. The defending attorney will be doing the same thing, looking for a precedent.

If we can change the meanings of words we can change that precedent. By changing the meaning of words, we change the way the other person perceives the issue. Take gay marriage as an example. Why is it called a marriage? Why not civil union or legal partnership? Marriage invokes a different meaning. Marriage is a time-honored tradition, it’s the normal thing.

Laws do not change opinions. Not on a personal level anyway. It is only personal integrity that implores us to comply with that opinion. Laws are opinions! And yes, they change over time. Every change in opinion (law) is a personal concession. The willingness to concede decreases with time. That’s the root cause of generational angst. It’s always been that way.

Older man and younger man arguing outdoors with raised hands
What part don’t you understand?


Discover more from Random Thoughts

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Ben Reichart Avatar

Published by

Categories:

Leave a Reply

We have all heard about Lawyers arguing their case. The judge listens to the argument. The Supreme court listens to the argument. In the end both will issue an opinion but call it a ruling. And that is the heart of the matter.

I used to believe that lawyers were arguing about the law, whether it was fair or not, that sort of thing. They presented evidence to prove or disprove their argument. I have to come to realize that isn’t the case. What they are arguing about is semantics.

The objective is to have your opponent concede to your meaning of a word or phrase. For instance, all persons. Does that really mean everyone? Well now, that all depends, and that is where the argument begins. Define a person? Keep in mind we are currently arguing over the definition of a woman.

The successful attorney imposes their own interpretation of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences, as they apply to the law. They win the argument! Sometimes they win by sheer persistence, just wear their opponent down. It’s the strength of personal conviction that wins the case for them.

At other times they will simply rely upon what was said in the past. We call that precedent. Judges employ clerks to do research for them. Basically, they want to know what was said about this case/situation in the past. The defending attorney will be doing the same thing, looking for a precedent.

If we can change the meanings of words we can change that precedent. By changing the meaning of words, we change the way the other person perceives the issue. Take gay marriage as an example. Why is it called a marriage? Why not civil union or legal partnership? Marriage invokes a different meaning. Marriage is a time-honored tradition, it’s the normal thing.

Laws do not change opinions. Not on a personal level anyway. It is only personal integrity that implores us to comply with that opinion. Laws are opinions! And yes, they change over time. Every change in opinion (law) is a personal concession. The willingness to concede decreases with time. That’s the root cause of generational angst. It’s always been that way.

Older man and younger man arguing outdoors with raised hands
What part don’t you understand?


Discover more from Random Thoughts

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

We have all heard about Lawyers arguing their case. The judge listens to the argument. The Supreme court listens to the argument. In the end both will issue an opinion but call it a ruling. And that is the heart of the matter.

I used to believe that lawyers were arguing about the law, whether it was fair or not, that sort of thing. They presented evidence to prove or disprove their argument. I have to come to realize that isn’t the case. What they are arguing about is semantics.

The objective is to have your opponent concede to your meaning of a word or phrase. For instance, all persons. Does that really mean everyone? Well now, that all depends, and that is where the argument begins. Define a person? Keep in mind we are currently arguing over the definition of a woman.

The successful attorney imposes their own interpretation of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences, as they apply to the law. They win the argument! Sometimes they win by sheer persistence, just wear their opponent down. It’s the strength of personal conviction that wins the case for them.

At other times they will simply rely upon what was said in the past. We call that precedent. Judges employ clerks to do research for them. Basically, they want to know what was said about this case/situation in the past. The defending attorney will be doing the same thing, looking for a precedent.

If we can change the meanings of words we can change that precedent. By changing the meaning of words, we change the way the other person perceives the issue. Take gay marriage as an example. Why is it called a marriage? Why not civil union or legal partnership? Marriage invokes a different meaning. Marriage is a time-honored tradition, it’s the normal thing.

Laws do not change opinions. Not on a personal level anyway. It is only personal integrity that implores us to comply with that opinion. Laws are opinions! And yes, they change over time. Every change in opinion (law) is a personal concession. The willingness to concede decreases with time. That’s the root cause of generational angst. It’s always been that way.

Older man and younger man arguing outdoors with raised hands
What part don’t you understand?


Discover more from Random Thoughts

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Discover more from Random Thoughts

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading