The Fourth Monkey Speaks

monkey_holding1

October 31, 2016

This blog will remain mostly dormant  inconsistently active, usually, and consistently mostly harmless, inevitably, for the foreseeable future. However, comments are now open, again, although what’s here is mostly past not prologue. But, that re-opening comes with a caveat. Click on “continue reading”, below, to read the caveat.

Continue reading

Will I still love you tomorrow? Or

But who won the war?

“I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.” (Horton Hatches The Egg,  Dr. Seuss (1940))

Sometimes, though, if we accept Horton’s statement as true,  there’s room to wonder if the judge(s) said what they meant when one considers the consequences of what the judge(s) said  to the next case with slightly different facts, even if the result is what the judge(s) seem to have intended in the particular case.

That is, if one applies what the judge(s) said for what they said.

Those of you who know the Quinn v Leathem aphorism might consider it. The rest of you could look it up. It’s on this blog.

 

On Writing For Law Reviews

One of the potential banes of writing for some Canadian law school law reviews and most American law school law reviews is the student editors. It’s not only the mostly unknown contributors who face having their paper rewritten by the assigned editor(s) for style and content, often extensively and heavy-handedly. (It’s well worth asking why it is the editors think they know better than the author, where the change isn’t merely one of citation form.) Even the academic elite sometimes face that problem; even when they’ve submitted an article they were asked to write for the review. At a talk in Oxford, yesterday, about HLA Hart, one of the (now and then eminent) speakers recounted his horror story. His solution? Tell the professor who was ultimately responsible for the review, and the student’s activities, that, in the circumstances, the speaker felt obliged to withdraw the article.

You can guess what happened: the professor promptly instructed the student editor(s) to reverse their changes. They were.

Continue reading