No Buts, Meow -- It's the Law

Forgive me, perhaps I'm feeling a little bit drunk with power right now, but goddamn! I love the law sometimes. I mean, authority figures have always ingrained this "It's the Law" mentality into our heads. First, growing up, our parents told us we couldn't do something. We ask why; their response? "Those are the rules." Occasionally we'd get something nearer the truth: "Because." Because? Because why? "Because I said so!" That's not an answer, we thought vainly to ourselves, as there was nothing we could do about it.

Same with teachers. Why can't I walk around the hallway without a hall pass? "That's the rule." Then, as we get older, the major authority -- police officers. "Why can't I drive 35 mph through here when its four lanes and there are no houses or pedestrians?" "That's the law." And now (for some of us), the ultimate authority - courts. Why is segregation permissible? "We uphold the rule of stare decisis. This is the law as it stands, and we affirm that law."

The law my ass. The older we get, the wiser we get, the more we realize - "Because I said so" is actually the truth behind the matter, in pretty much every occasion. Someone decided this is the rule. Whether there is good reason for the rule or not, virtually every decision, whether rule, law, or nonbinding resolution, is pretty much just "Because I said so."

That's the great thing about finally being the authority figure. Or at least in a position to fuck with authority figures -- i.e., a lawyer.

Here I am at work, drafting this brief charging a statute as unconstitutional again. I just printed off a rough draft, read through it, and realized -- this is absolute hogwash. I mean, no court on earth should look at this and think, "Yeah, that's an accurate statement of the law." Don't get me wrong, its well-written and relatively persuasive. I present an argument that, if you completely lose sight of the statute and its purpose, you might actually buy, if only for a moment. It's a fairly complex issue, and the brief basically follows a logical progression along the lines of "This is a well-established policy. This is an important fact. Because of the presence of this important fact, this policy should be applied to this completely unrelated statute under these circumstances, and achieve this result." Now, the policy is correct, and the facts are correct, so it's not like I'm just making shit up. But at some point, the logic train pretty much goes straight the fuck off the rails. In other words, what I'm suggesting is a pretty absurd result.

But my god, if a judge were to read this and buy my argument? Stranger things have happened. And if that happened, heaven forbid, this would be the new state of the law.

Because I said so.

How cool is that?