Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.

The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.

There is only one interpretation that is correct though, and that's the one that follows the rules. You can Da Jump and GoI turn 1 just fine, but you're still limited to your deployment zone Turn 1 if you do.

If/When GW change that rule, I'll be all on board for it, until then if you want to use the Beta rules, use them properly.

When did the universe give you final say on how to interpret the English language?

I'll take official guidance from the game designers over internet anons any day.

The joke is, none of this effects me. I rarely bring my weirdboy anymore and I tend to use mostly 1 trukk with bunras and 1 wagon with 20 shoota boyz. XD

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.

The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.

There is only one interpretation that is correct though, and that's the one that follows the rules. You can Da Jump and GoI turn 1 just fine, but you're still limited to your deployment zone Turn 1 if you do.

If/When GW change that rule, I'll be all on board for it, until then if you want to use the Beta rules, use them properly.

When did the universe give you final say on how to interpret the English language?

Yeaaaah, I have to agree with you here. Its clear how its going to be tested and played with the picture. Which for a rule is gak, but fine for playtesting because GW pretty much took the stance "the phrasing doesn't matter just play for our intent." It can cause a lot of problems if they lazily copy+paste it without clarifying things once it becomes official. Just like 5 weapon coldstars. Silly and not even remotely likely to be designers intent, but until the FAQ was 100% legal. Although the reason why its important to have people proof read things before they become official is now you have another problem with the coldstar. It is impossible to take the HOBC without a missile pod due to more broken language. It took 3 tries to get savior protocols to work as intended. However, I do not think anyone who has seen the picture can reasonably say they do not know how to play the rule as per GW's wishes.

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.

A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.

Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.

Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!

 Formosa wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.

A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.

Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.

Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!

Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.

Audustum wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.

A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.

Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.

Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!

Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.

I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

 Formosa wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.

A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.

Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.

Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!

Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.

I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.

Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

No we don't. They are already here.

Audustum wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.

A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.

Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.

Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!

Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.

I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.

Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

No we don't. They are already here.

Nah not a lawyer just trained as a solicitor, I have another job that keeps me very busy

Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.

He wasn't referring to your interpretation of precedent, he was referring to your "pretty much, yeah" response to "unless you're in the UK..."

Unless in that instance referenced the statement "A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge." As you're no doubt aware, unless in this context means "This is true, except [circumstances]".

Thus, your response was "unless you're in the UK and there's precedent issues, a lawyer would be laughed out of the courtroom for bringing a textualist argument" as a result of sentence construction and the lineage of the conversation.

Audustum has done a good job of laying out why, at least for American jurisprudence, your response was not "completely correct" insofar as a textualist argument would NOT be laughed out of the courtroom.

It's possible that UK jurisprudence doesn't have the same requirement for ambiguity, but you never addressed that (or the entire thrust of Audustum's post, really), and you've instead focused on the aspect of your response that wasn't contested.

If you're going to argue with a lawyer, you'll want to be more careful in reading comprehension and the language you employ.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.

He wasn't referring to your interpretation of precedent, he was referring to your "pretty much, yeah" response to "unless you're in the UK..."

Unless in that instance referenced the statement "A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge." As you're no doubt aware, unless in this context means "This is true, except [circumstances]".

Thus, your response was "unless you're in the UK and there's precedent issues, a lawyer would be laughed out of the courtroom for bringing a textualist argument" as a result of sentence construction and the lineage of the conversation.

Audustum has done a good job of laying out why, at least for American jurisprudence, your response was not "completely correct" insofar as a textualist argument would NOT be laughed out of the courtroom.

It's possible that UK jurisprudence doesn't have the same requirement for ambiguity, but you never addressed that (or the entire thrust of Audustum's post, really), and you've instead focused on the aspect of your response that wasn't contested.

If you're going to argue with a lawyer, you'll want to be more careful in reading comprehension and the language you employ.

Wrroooooonnngggg

I was replying to a Brit in britland talking about British law, so context was clear, couldn’t care less about American law let alone to try to comment on it.

Also it seems both you and he had the comprehension failure, but nice try.

Don't worry, it's OK to miss the fact that you've incorporated previous comments in the chain by reference. It isn't a crime, or even a civil infraction!

But y'know, perhaps we're like two ships passing unaware in the night, our points proudly shielding each other from mutual understanding.

The important thing is that we both feel superor to each other, for having had our points missed, right?




Edit:

Actually on topic this time:

The main undisputed fact here is that GW's intent is crystal clear. If playing a casual game, I'd hope the vast majority of us will play it as GW intended, given these are "Beta rules" that everyone would want consistent feedback on (because we don't want GW acting on feedback that incorporates rule interpretations GW didn't intend to incorporate). GW could contribute to that by changing the actual wording of the playtest rule, but they seem to believe the Warhammer Community picture is enough.

For the vast majority, it will be.

While it would be incredibly confusing to a hypothetical new player trying to work things out on their own, I'd imagine that most new players aren't actually alone and without guidance from other members of the WH40k community (which might include the friend that introduced them to drugs... er, tabletop gaming, a game-shop owner, the local gaming community, and more. The confusion, if there were any, would be pretty quickly dispelled without too much trouble.

On general principle, I'm disappointed with GW that they aren't keeping to their own policy of "Rules come from the Rules Writers". I don't want to have to comb through the entirety of the Warhammer Community page, let alone their facebook page, and try to find Ninja FAQs. I don't like the precedent set by the Community page providing errata/FAQs when there is already a perfectly viable forum for that: The FAQs themselves!

The reality is that for pick-up games, the obvious intent will generally be played (while those who insist on interpreting against the intent won't get too many games), and for Tournaments, the rules will need to be clarified anyway, if they're included at all. On the level of "problematic business practices" this barely rates as an annoyance.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Don't worry, it's OK to miss the fact that you've incorporated previous comments in the chain by reference. It isn't a crime, or even a civil infraction!

But y'know, perhaps we're like two ships passing unaware in the night, our points proudly shielding each other from mutual understanding.

The important thing is that we both feel superor to each other, for having had our points missed, right?




Edit:

Actually on topic this time:

The main undisputed fact here is that GW's intent is crystal clear. If playing a casual game, I'd hope the vast majority of us will play it as GW intended, given these are "Beta rules" that everyone would want consistent feedback on (because we don't want GW acting on feedback that incorporates rule interpretations GW didn't intend to incorporate). GW could contribute to that by changing the actual wording of the playtest rule, but they seem to believe the Warhammer Community picture is enough.

For the vast majority, it will be.

While it would be incredibly confusing to a hypothetical new player trying to work things out on their own, I'd imagine that most new players aren't actually alone and without guidance from other members of the WH40k community (which might include the friend that introduced them to drugs... er, tabletop gaming, a game-shop owner, the local gaming community, and more. The confusion, if there were any, would be pretty quickly dispelled without too much trouble.

On general principle, I'm disappointed with GW that they aren't keeping to their own policy of "Rules come from the Rules Writers". I don't want to have to comb through the entirety of the Warhammer Community page, let alone their facebook page, and try to find Ninja FAQs. I don't like the precedent set by the Community page providing errata/FAQs when there is already a perfectly viable forum for that: The FAQs themselves!

The reality is that for pick-up games, the obvious intent will generally be played (while those who insist on interpreting against the intent won't get too many games), and for Tournaments, the rules will need to be clarified anyway, if they're included at all. On the level of "problematic business practices" this barely rates as an annoyance.

Yeah sure why not, sounds like a spiffing compromise


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree with you by the way, just to be clear, yeah it’s a shame gw have basically released a rule FAQ in such a manner as it only adds to confusion, but the intent IS clear now, so that’s how I and I am sure, others, will play it.

In fairness I would question the motives of anyone who would use beta rules with a new player. Games can be confusing enough to get the hang of without veterans asking newbies to learn rules that might not work the same way in a few months.

Likewise I don't see why they would need to FAQ a rule that isn't 100% set in place. If people are confused they write to GW to tell them its confusing and GW will clarify it when the rule is finalised. You could argue this doesn't help with tournaments but tournaments enforcing beta rules is the dumbest gak I've ever heard. Warmahordes doesn't use CID rules in tournaments because they know this and it's essentially the same situation.
If GW released a beta rule saying "Space Marine armies may play with an additional 1000pts, always get the first turn and an additional 10cp." would THAT be enforced at tourmaments as well?

Hmmm I don’t know about not introducing a new player to the beta rules, or at least informing them that they exist. These rules make fairly large changes to the way lists function, therefore may have a large impact on purchases. I’d say if your local group is generally using them, I’d introduce them. If not, I’d just throw it out there as a possible future change at least so they’re aware. Especially since these changes in theory damp down some of the more punishing to newbie tactics anyway, I’d be inclined to intergrate them into my games.

 Sim-Life wrote:

If GW released a beta rule saying "Space Marine armies may play with an additional 1000pts, always get the first turn and an additional 10cp." would THAT be enforced at tourmaments as well?

I don't know, but that might give the Marines a fighting chance against an IG gunline or the Eldar.

So, after seven pages, would this seem a reasonable conclusion?

"Play the game in line with the intent of the rule (as per the Facebook image), but provide feedback that the wording of the rule as it stands is not clear enough to avoid confusion. Tournaments running events using these beta rules should make sure players are aware of how it is meant to work, possibly by including the image in their rules pack."

 Dysartes wrote:
So, after seven pages, would this seem a reasonable conclusion?

"Play the game in line with the intent of the rule (as per the Facebook image), but provide feedback that the wording of the rule as it stands is not clear enough to avoid confusion. Tournaments running events using these beta rules should make sure players are aware of how it is meant to work, possibly by including the image in their rules pack."

Yeah that’s exactly how I feel about it, I was on the other side but since the FB and pic clarifications I’m not, simples.

Audustum wrote:

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.

One would think that an "actual certified and admitted lawyer" would be able to discern that based on the United Kingdom flag by his user name. Apparently Devry is handing out law degrees now?

That picture two (one?) page(s) ago was hilarious.

And so, so so true.

 EnTyme wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.

One would think that an "actual certified and admitted lawyer" would be able to discern that based on the United Kingdom flag by his user name. Apparently Devry is handing out law degrees now?

You'd think people wouldn't pseudo-necro a thread just to make stupid comments, but here we are.

By way of further answer, when you're on some phones, the flags appear microscopic to non-existent. Thanks for playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.

A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.

Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.

Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!

Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.

I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.

Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

No we don't. They are already here.

Nah not a lawyer just trained as a solicitor, I have another job that keeps me very busy

Unusual Suspect said most of what I would in response, but I have to say, where on Earth did you get a Master's that WOULDN'T have mentioned, at least incidentally, that American law is based on British law so duh precedent works the same on both? I mean, seriously.

That said, even in Britain your courts cannot directly defy a law without an established exception (like some common law rights). Speaking overly simplistically, of course, since this isn't ablaw forum.

The Law of Persuasive Jurisprudence: All claims made in a discussion on an online forum become baseless and without merit once a participant in the discussion justifies their argument by citing their professional or academic background in law. Exceptions include forums that are topically focused on legal subjects.

The scope of this law applies to all content posted by the participant citing their background, and may apply to other participants in the event they continue engaging in debate with the participant making the claims.

In the event all discussion is deemed baseless and without merit, all participants shall cease conversation on the topic or continue on at peril of being deemed dweebs and nincompoops in the context of the forum.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The Law of Persuasive Jurisprudence: All claims made in a discussion on an online forum become baseless and without merit once a participant in the discussion justifies their argument by citing their professional or academic background in law. Exceptions include forums that are topically focused on legal subjects.

The scope of this law applies to all content posted by the participant citing their background, and may apply to other participants in the event they continue engaging in debate with the participant making the claims.

In the event all discussion is deemed baseless and without merit, all participants shall cease conversation on the topic or continue on at peril of being deemed dweebs and nincompoops in the context of the forum.

Huh....kinda similar to godwins law

It's amazing how much havoc a simple joke about a current court case launched off... Sorry about that.

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
It's amazing how much havoc a simple joke about a current court case launched off... Sorry about that.

Well at least it serves as a living example of one of the 3 topics never to bring up in conversation. Politics

Don't worry, Lion. The Dark Angels have taught us all we need to know about forgiveness for such offenses.