...is Saturday, 7/24. I have to take a break from reading for Jurisprudence because this stuff is mind-bending. There really doesn't seem to be any simple explanation I've come across for even the simplest of concepts, and the textbook's included essays are incomprehensible... as far as my pea brain is concerned. Okay, a little overdramatic, but what I am picking up is, however, pure platinum.
I'm glad I'm taking this class because it involves discussion on what judges, or decision makers, or anyone who is affected by law for that matter, do when there is no clear answer. I STILL, to this day, treasure Justice Thurgood Marshall's quip abbot how "our language lacks mathematical certainty," to paraphrase his famous quote from Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972), and boy does it ever when it comes to Jurisprudence. Why? From what I can gather, it's because we all differ on when and how morality affects law, established or otherwise; and even further, what is or is not moral.
North Korea and other isolationist or homogeneous cultures come to mind constantly as I'm sitting in class, and I wonder, if there is zero outside western influence (just pretend for a moment that were possible beyond trade and other issues),, do they spend so much time wondering whether it abortion is really deserving of government sanction, or whether gay marriage should be allowed? Well, do they?! What do they do in North Korea? Part of me is actually dying to know. Wouldn't that make a great coop or project... Jurisprudence as it relates to isolationist countries. Heh, we can't even seem to figure out healthcare as a cohesive nation, and what's this about Tennessee attempting secession?! Really? Google it people. I know it's just talk at this point but you don't just throw secession out there, it's not an UNO card.
There's a lot more to it though.
In other news, I participated in a YMCA Young Achievers program with some classmates a few weeks ago, developed by our admissions office. I participated last year and it was awesome. This is my favorite event at the school, though I'm not so sure why. The students are hilarious, and I think it's fun to get them involved.
The only difficulty is that they seem to ask a lot of legal questions, which isn't the best thing because it'd be a not-so-good situation to have students go back to their friends talking about, "a law school student told us we should do this or that if we end up in X situation." Big no-no.
My response was to ask them what they thought should happen, what the law might say, while trying to get them to see both sides of the coin--should X be illegal? What law would you make? Who will it affect? Would everyone agree that it's fair, or just? I didn't have the specific answers to their questions, and if I did, I couldn't give them to the students because I'm not bar certified. But the next best thing, to me, still has to do with my position that the point of teaching or learning is not really to regurgitate the correct answer, but to get the asker or askee (yes, askee) to see that while a specific law or rule may exist, it is understood more deeply when thought of at a foundational and contextual level.
Enough slacking, back to trying to sort out these philosophical anomalies.