Legal Ambiguities Strike Again

[smittywing]

I would just like to say that if we are not allowed to leave legal ambiguities in our proposed legislation that comport with the legal ambiguities that are already in the Code, maybe the assignment should NOT HAVE FUCKING AMBIGUITIES IN THE FUCKING INSTRUCTIONS. Or rather, lack thereof

Comments

[ladycat777]

closed captioning calls her thirteen. Tv.com and imdb say her last name is Brennan, no first name. I can't read; imdb calls her Thirteen, too.

also, she's awesome.

*hugs a lot* Um. I wrote kinda sad fic yesterday that might make you less rage-ful? Even if they clearly deserve it?

[smittywing]

I'm so amused that even the closed captioning calls her 13. That's just awesome. I agree, too - she's awesome and since Tuesday's episode, I have a fic that I want to write about her but...I'm not sure I can call her Thirteen through the whole thing. :)

YAY FIC. I have it open. There will definitely be reading soon!

[vipersweb]

he he. I'm enjoying the fun that is trust and estates and estate and gift tax. The Estate and Gift tax code is absolutely brill. Honestly. So... logical? Oh fuck it. I can't actually say that with a straight face.

Loads of sympathy!

[smittywing]

Haha, thank you. :) I don't have either of those this semester but I have Bankruptcy and that code is pretty hilarious, too. I like Bankruptcy though. The professor's all, "Here's the code. Learn the code." Legal writing is like, "Write some legislation! Here's the four things that must be in there. Oh, now I'm going to penalize you on all these things that we didn't want you to repeat from the Virginia Code even though we didn't tell you they were wrong." :P

[vipersweb]

I really, really like E + G tax. Surprisingly to me. Even if it is very confusing and doesn't always make sense. Trusts and Estates is rather interesting but has me terrified of ever drafting a will.

I'm reading Lawrence v. Texas right now for Con Law II and I am amazed? horrified? at the logic used by Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas as to why the Texas statute shouldn't be overturned. But of course they are not against homosexuals. And then Thomas has this tiny little dissent that follows about how he finds the Texas statute silly, but can't find a reason to overturn it in the Constitution. It just boggles my mind b/c he signs onto a dissent that fairly screams homophobia and then writes this tiny dissent, that on its own, wouldn't have bothered me too much, b/c this is Thomas after all. I just don't get the man.

[smittywing]

Your cat is so awesome. If your cat met my cat, there might be an implosion of cute.

[trobadora]

*pets*

[smittywing]

*flops* Thanks. :)

[chlorate]

lol! i'm an editor for the state legislative counsel here and can i just say that ambiguity seems to be the only underlying purport & intention of all the laws that come across my desk. seems a bit hypocritical to criticise it in law school...

[smittywing]

Hahaha, that is so gratifying. I have a future after all. Woot!