#Jurisprudence

[mysteriousdrone]

“My duty is to call it out” Judge Young, who was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1985, called the terminations “arbitrary and capricious.” But he went further than other judges in the many impoundment suits, calling the administration out for its flagrant animus against racial and sexual minorities. “I am hesitant to draw this conclusion — but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it — that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community,” he said, according to Politico. “That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.“

* Some days I’m proud of my chosen profession. Trump’s abuse of the law made lawyers cool again. 

[ceruleanblueshells]

jeremy knox would hate studying jurisprudence

[ultrvmonogamy]

what if u died n got to the pearly gates n saint peter was like nah u can't come in. everything else is p understandable but i simply cannot abide the recreational abuse of robitussin

[borntolaw]

Revised Jurisprudence and practiced 130 objective questions, scored 85 :'(

I don't know why but I always get confused among all the options when I'm practicing MCQs on Jurisprudence.

Here's hoping that I'm able to increase my score before my exam.

[allegorypaintings]

Jurisprudence: Allegorical Figure

Artist: Nicolai Abildgaard (Danish, 1743–1809)

Date: 1800

Medium: Oil on canvas

Collection: Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, Denmark

[drjorgesblog]

The World in March 2025: Justice, Complexity, and Pluralism Amid Global Strife

The World in March 2025 Justice, Complexity, and Pluralism Amid Global Strife As of March 14, 2025, the world teeters on edges of conflict and fragile diplomacy, from Ukraine’s ceasefire talks to Syria’s sectarian bloodshed. My works—sovereignty conflicts and distributive justice (2017), territorial disputes (2020), and cosmopolitanism, state sovereignty and pluralist theory (2023)—frame this…

[eelhound]

"Sometimes I see people darkly warning that prosecuting Trump could set a precedent that would be used to prosecute Democratic presidents for their crimes. My response to this warning is best expressed in the title of a classic song by the band Panic! at the Disco: 'Don’t threaten me with a good time.'

I would love to see President Barack Obama, for example, face criminal prosecution for the many drone strikes he ordered around the world — including the strikes that killed radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki and his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, both of whom were US citizens. These strikes amounted to extrajudicial executions of terrorism suspects who hadn’t been convicted of any crime and who were nowhere near anything that could remotely be construed as a battlefield. In the case of al-Awlaki, there’s reason to think that it was an extrajudicial execution not even for clearly illegal acts but for the inflammatory words in his sermons.

And that brings us to the real double standard here. Trying to overturn an American election is the kind of crime the Justice Department takes seriously. Extrajudicially slaughtering scary Muslims in a foreign country, even ones with US citizenship, is not. Even George W. Bush invading Iraq based on lies doesn’t count. Hundreds of thousands of people died and millions became refugees, but those were the wrong kind of victims for our justice system to take an interest in them.

The solution to that double standard, though, isn’t to let Trump off the hook for conspiring to overturn a democratic election. It’s to indict George W. Bush. One president finally being subject to prosecution for some of his crimes isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start."

- Ben Burgis, from "Donald Trump Being Prosecuted for His Crimes Is Good, Actually." Jacobin, 4 August 2023.

[v-67]

I was studying Jurisprudence for my exam, and it's actually so interesting.

I mean I keep everything that I have to study for exams, but I do understand the concepts

The language I write in may not construct a guidelike answer, but atleast it makes me happy to know that I know the concept and the clarity regarding the concepts.

But anyways, back here

Jurisprudence is actually so much interesting.

So many theories, so many schools, felt like a pain in the ass while covering up the syllabus

But it's all genuinely so interesting.

Natural law school believes in divine law

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were Greek philosophers who contributed to this theory

Socrates defined virtue, Plato introduced Doctrine of forms, Aristotle added more specifics to doctrine of forms while agreeing and disagreeing to some of the specifications made by Plato.

Analytical law school studies what is law and not what law ought to be

So many philosophers/jurists in this theory with their own different aspects.

John Austin : Gave the theory that : Laws are commands of the sovereign backed by sanction.

Jeremy Bentham : Utilitarian theory

H.L.A. Hart : Divided law into Primary and secondary rules

Hans Kelsen : pure theory of law, fun fact : Kelsen was also known as doubly pure because of his theory.

Historical school studies origin and development of law throughout the history.

Important Jurists : Savigny, Henry Maine

Sociological school studies sociological impact of law on society and how it affects a common individual.

Realist school.

Now this one.

It caught my attention because of how it's theory is.

One Scandinavian jurist talks about how Law is nothing but a psychological pressure created through times immemorial.

One such example is that when a classmate tells me that there's an exam tomorrow. It won't be taken as seriously as when the same information comes through the official notification of college.

Official notification in this context is one such example of psychological pressure in action.

It is rooted in the subconscious through history. This pressure created through history created a subconscious pressure to take official notifications, statutes, an authoritative body seriously, and to follow such laws or directions imposed by them.

Now, do you understand how crazy this is?

I mean it's really simple but it was something I never thought of.

We can connect this theory of psychological pressure to a lot of things. I'm a lot sleep deprived at the very moment, but if something comes to my mind, I'll write it down.

Because it's a topic that interests me, and it's so fun to think about it in regards to what more can it be?

One more Jurist tells us within this school, that The right you talk about exists only in metaphysical sense.

But if supposedly, I go to practice my right in court, I'll have to follow court's obligations.

But what if I don't follow court's obligations/ what If I couldn't follow it? Does that mean that I don't have a right?

And even after a case being heard by a judge, what if the ruling is not in our favor, does that mean we don't have rights?

Therefore as an example, Right can be considered as a metaphysical concept, for in that it never really exists in actuality.

This school focuses more on how law operates in the real world.

It also focuses on points such as, Judges are also humans and being a human, they can have bias, may it be conscious/subconscious

Therefore law studies how law is in real world and how it works and how is it applied and so on.

It concerns itself with reality of the law and world.

One example of Judges being humans and how it affects a law is that

Suppose a case arising dispute regarding abortion arises, and the judge is a Christian judge. In this case, the judge cannot give an order without some bias, as in Christianity abortion is not supported.

So my point was that Juris is really interesting, the theories are so complex and this question to define what law is and different ways to study it

Especially to study it since the ancient time, since the time of Socrates and still coming up with definitive meanings and theories and criticisms. I like it. It's complex I know, but it is that constant change and new way approach that keeps law changing, and accustoming new ways of thinking.

So yeah, loved it.

Cool theories.

[sssquash]

Another post! Exams are coming soon meh

Constituency is just the closest definition I could find, but it doesn’t only relate to election. It’s like a type of territory, but there’s no 100% analogue in English for this word, so you can just use «okrug» instead (＠´ー`)ﾉﾞ

[toastyslayingbutter]

A fantastic look into Afrofuturism and our legal regime.

[palaciosworks]

Yes, that's a real citation

[so-true-overdue]

Vaccines: The Unsung Heroes of Modern Medicine

In the grand pantheon of medical triumphs, vaccines stand as the unparalleled epitome of human ingenuity and triumph over nature’s capricious whims. Vaccines are the linchpins of public health, their efficacy and safety underscored by an avalanche of incontrovertible data, yet their importance is often obfuscated by a cacophony of misinformation.

Vaccines have achieved a monumental feat: the near-eradication of diseases that once ravaged populations with impunity. Polio, that malevolent specter of paralysis, has been reduced to a ghostly whisper thanks to widespread immunization. The triumph over smallpox, once a scourge of biblical proportions, is a testament to the unassailable power of vaccination. The statistics are unequivocal: vaccines prevent an estimated 2 to 3 million deaths annually worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. This is not hyperbole; this is empirical reality.

Contrary to the alarmist rhetoric perpetuated by the misinformed, adverse reactions to vaccines are astonishingly rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that serious allergic reactions occur in approximately one per million doses. To juxtapose this with the morbidity and mortality rates of vaccine-preventable diseases is to lay bare the absurdity of the anti-vaccine diatribe. The infinitesimal risk of adverse reactions pales in comparison to the devastating consequences of unchecked infectious diseases.

In the realm of jurisprudence, the mandate of vaccination is not merely a matter of public health; it is a legal imperative grounded in the doctrine of parens patriae. The state has an incontrovertible obligation to protect the welfare of its citizens, particularly those who are most vulnerable. Compulsory vaccination laws have withstood judicial scrutiny, their constitutionality upheld in landmark cases such as Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). This jurisprudential precedent underscores the principle that individual liberties do not encompass the right to jeopardize public health.

In conclusion, vaccines are not merely a medical marvel; they are the bulwark against the resurgence of pernicious pathogens. The statistical evidence is irrefutable, the legal framework robust, and the ethical imperative clear. To eschew vaccination is not an exercise in personal autonomy but an abdication of social responsibility, a perilous flirtation with epidemiological disaster. Let us, therefore, extol the virtues of vaccines with the fervor they so richly deserve, recognizing them as the silent sentinels safeguarding our collective well-being.

[thewordenreport]

The Case Against Israel

If you are downcast because of the ease with which Putin and Netanyahu have been able to ignore international law, the cases against Israel in international courts may have a silver lining. Political development internationally can admittedly be slow and frustrating: https://thewordenreportinternationalrelations.blogspot.com/2025/04/on-case-against-israel-icc-and-icj-as.html

[ultrvmonogamy]

it's rly not that deep ur honor

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

The Psychopathy of Capitalism: Implications for Jurisprudence

The stark alignment between psychopathic traits and the core tenets of capitalism presents a profound challenge to modern jurisprudence. This observation hinges on the unsettling realization that capitalism's inherent emphasis on profit maximization, competition, and individualism mirrors the characteristics of psychopathy, notably a lack of empathy, manipulativeness, and egocentricity. Understanding this alignment is crucial for a nuanced analysis of the legal frameworks governing capitalist societies.

Capitalism, by design, incentivizes behaviors that prioritize self-interest and profit over communal well-being. This economic system rewards those who can strategically navigate and manipulate market conditions, often at the expense of ethical considerations. Such traits are strikingly similar to those identified in psychopathy, where individuals exhibit a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights and feelings of others. The legal system, therefore, finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with the need to regulate behaviors that capitalism not only condones but celebrates.

The influence of psychopathic traits in capitalism becomes evident when examining corporate malfeasance. Corporations, driven by the imperative of profit maximization, frequently engage in practices that harm consumers, employees, and the environment. These actions, often executed with calculated indifference to moral considerations, highlight a systemic issue where the legal system is complicit in perpetuating harm by failing to impose adequate restraints. This complicity is rooted in a legal framework that prioritizes economic growth and market efficiency, often overlooking the social and ethical ramifications of corporate actions.

Furthermore, the capitalist doctrine fosters an environment where legal principles such as justice and fairness are subordinated to economic imperatives. The commodification of essential services, such as healthcare and education, illustrates the tension between capitalist logic and the ethical foundations of jurisprudence. In a system where profit is the ultimate goal, access to justice becomes a commodity rather than a right, exacerbating social inequalities and undermining the legitimacy of the legal system.

In conclusion, the psychopathic underpinnings of capitalism pose significant challenges for jurisprudence. The legal system must confront the ethical dilemmas inherent in an economic model that rewards psychopathic traits. Addressing these challenges requires a re-evaluation of legal principles and the development of frameworks that prioritize social justice and ethical integrity over unbridled economic gain. Only through such a re-evaluation can the legal system hope to mitigate the adverse effects of capitalism's psychopathic tendencies and uphold the core values of justice and fairness.

[sosorrydad]

Just got accepted into the LLM program of Legal Theory at my town's law school. Jurisprudence, my dear Weber!