This area does not yet contain any content.
This area does not yet contain any content.
This area does not yet contain any content.
« Mother's Day | Main | Hair We Go »
Wednesday
May072014

Wow-Moments in Jurisprudence

... reply to this point (below): "the mental processes by which people actually reach legal decisions are quite mysterious"

I'm not sure I follow. The mental process by which even determinate things are found might not be well explained. I'm thinking here of the movie Proof, where Paltro's character first realizes that she has solved a mathematical problem. She's reaching in the fridge -- for either mayonnaise or peanut butter (can't remember which). I wonder what Einstein was doing when relativity came to mind? Wittgenstein was looking at a story about an auto accident in a Paris magazine when the picture theory of language came to mind. One of the things that jarred him into the opposite direction was being given a non-verbal Neapolitan gesture having a negative connotation.   

I don't think the issue of wow-moments in jurisprudence is dealt with very well in the below authorities. I can't even fathom if anything of substance is said here. I hope that what isn't being asserted,  as an enthymeme, is anything like thes: in legal judging, "wow-moments" show us that law is political (whatever that means). Or it shows us that it isn't constrained or principled. Or that judges aren't supposed to have "wow moments."  Or that wow-moments in law are different cognitively from physics, mathematics, geology or poetry -- which isn't true. Or that when justices fail to have "wow moments," they are judging better, legally. All of these props seem horrendously poor.

Just about the only sense I could make of the matter is saying that this particular judge's wow-moment amounted to something that wouldn't wow the rest of the thinkers on the subject, implying that his lights were dim. I don't think that's what is being said, however, so I'm left only to see the matter as poor sarcasm.     

--------------- message replied to --------------

By sheer accident I was seated in the early 1990s at a dinner table with [a justice] who was clearly proud of his opinion for the court.  The conversation sticks in the memory because he described how the entire legal basis for the outcome came to him in a flash late one night while rummaging in the frig for the makings of a sandwich.  Worrying about the case had made him sleepless.  As REASON IN LAW has for decades pointed out, the mental processes by which people actually reach legal decisions are quite mysterious :-)

PL

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>