The problem with working in the judiciary is that you have to objectively listen to stupidity and then address its merits. While this may appear simple in theory it is incredibly difficult in practice. I have become a study in temperance and self-restraint, which in the past were not things that I excelled at. I would love to write something to the effect of: "the appellant is a complete and utter moron if he/she/it honestly believes what he/she/it is saying is true". However, I typically end up writing: "we find that the appellant's argument is without merit". Trust, me the two typically mean the same thing.
In the last 24 hours I have found my writing slowed and more deliberate than usual. I largely blame it on the issues which are currently before me and their complexity. However, some is also to blame for the fact that there always seems to be a gray area. I've dealt with only 2 or 3 cases that were clear, cut and dry. The rest have been at one point in time a mess. I am amazed by how often a set of facts splits the middle of two theories of law or binding precedents.
I find absolutely amazing the size and body of law out there on any single topic. It seems that every issue in the history of society has been dealt with by our courts, except for the issue that you are currently faced with. I applaud litigants for their ability to accidently find themselves in a mess that no one has ever dealt with before. Maybe after I leave my post I'll have a better understanding of how this can happen, but I doubt it. Likely I leave here just as amazed as I was the first day I arrived.
No comments:
Post a Comment