Trade Offs

 “You seem to consider the [Supreme Court] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Thomas Jefferson

Have you ever given in to temptation and - just this once - posted a comment on social media about a subject other than how cute your Havanese puppy is, or the tasty aspects of the latest rib experiment? Never? Then, your work is done here. If, however, you are shaking your head recalling the last time...vowing never again, I am here to offer an observation as a kindred soul.

I ran into an internet creature called the "Faux Attorney." Credentials being what they are, it's easy to lie in a medium where nobody has to prove that what they say is actual and factual. I'm not talking about the keyboard warrior who claims a Juris Doctor when, in fact, they received a certificate from the Luau Layaway School of Legal Studies. I'm also not talking about the sort of person who engages in bald-faced lies about their credentials.

There is that person who may actually have the legal credentials they say they have, but uses them for evil, rather than good. If you are with me so far, you know the type. In the midst of a perfectly reasonable conversation involving differing but respectful positions, they trot out something akin to the following:

Oh, yeah? Well check out Rocky v. Boris and Natasha, et al. The Supreme Court says you are wrong!!!!! (Emphasis in the original)

For the average person not still paying off their law school loans, they take this at face value...humbled again. Superior education has won the day and they take their lumps and go back to watching cover band videos on YouTube. But, wait.

One finds out, on closer examination, that Rocky is about standing to sue ("Can the Russian KGB sue a flying squirrel for defamation in an American federal court?") whereas, in fact, your conversation is a UCC dispute about a faulty anvil shipment (Coyote, W. v. Acme being more on point). Since one has little to do with the other - other than all are cartoons - merely tossing out a case name and appending exclamation points in the manner of your dog resting their nose on that key does not win the argument. It makes that person a bully.

That's never the end of it. Someone who has watched LA Law on  TV will challenge - what is your authority for saying Rocky doesn't apply? It is pointless to observe that a first year law student (the industry term is 1L) learned how to reason on their own, how to "distinguish" between cases that count, and ones that don't. In short, how to do their own thinking before yelling out case names. But, as a practitioner I offer the best retort, which is useful generally. I heard this uttered by a law professor in one of my daughter's classes I had the privilege to attend. To wit:

Sometimes, citation to authority only means you've found someone who agrees with you, but is also wrong.

Or, stick with the YouTube videos.