Words to make you confused

[Colleen Thomas]

Anyone ever read a supreme court opinion?

I am currently working through the majority opinion on the Oregon Death with Dignity lawsuit. I'm fairly intelligent, have a fairly large vocabulary and have a good grasp of reading for comprehension, but I swear, these things seem WRITTEN to confuse.

It occured to me that the reason your average person seems to care little about court decisions or to accept simplistic explanations of them, is in a large part due to how much work you have to put into understanding one.

I wonder now if that isn't intentional? The result is obviously a well deserved smack on the nose with a newspaper for the asscroft/gonzolaes AG and justice department. But on a narrower field, I can't help but get the feeling there are fewer than a thousand people in the country who aren't lawyers who could muddle through it and get the exact reasoning and scope of the decision.

 

[entitled]

That's exactly the point.

If it's too much a pain in the butt, people won't even try to fiddle around with understanding what's there. That way they won't question it.

 

[Honey123]

Anyone ever read a supreme court opinion?

I am currently working through the majority opinion on the Oregon Death with Dignity lawsuit. I'm fairly intelligent, have a fairly large vocabulary and have a good grasp of reading for comprehension, but I swear, these things seem WRITTEN to confuse.

It occured to me that the reason your average person seems to care little about court decisions or to accept simplistic explanations of them, is in a large part due to how much work you have to put into understanding one.

I wonder now if that isn't intentional? The result is obviously a well deserved smack on the nose with a newspaper for the asscroft/gonzolaes AG and justice department. But on a narrower field, I can't help but get the feeling there are fewer than a thousand people in the country who aren't lawyers who could muddle through it and get the exact reasoning and scope of the decision.

I work for lawyers...I understand totally what you mean ~ most of th times I want to smack them on the nose with newspapers and just say "Speak English already!!!"

But, seriously, opinions are written so that no one can be held accountable for someone not understanding what is being written. Confused? Ya, I thought so...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I work for lawyers...I understand totally what you mean ~ most of th times I want to smack them on the nose with newspapers and just say "Speak English already!!!"

But, seriously, opinions are written so that no one can be held accountable for someone not understanding what is being written. Confused? Ya, I thought so...

I can see you're point. It seems a good deal of it is explaining the underpinnings of the suit, it's causes and how it is affected by previous rulings and suits.

 

[impressive]

I can see you're point. It seems a good deal of it is explaining the underpinnings of the suit, it's causes and how it is affected by previous rulings and suits.

Of course. Lawyers will NOT give their opinion until they restate the basis. That way, if challenged, they can point to their own interpretation and say (using MANY, MANY more words): "Oh, shucks. I really thought it mean this, not that."

Blindings of Fact and Diffusions of Law.

 

[Honey123]

I can see you're point. It seems a good deal of it is explaining the underpinnings of the suit, it's causes and how it is affected by previous rulings and suits.

A lot of research goes into opinions and really the totality of the lawsuit.

It's amazing how just one screw up can put an innocent person behind bars forever, or can get a killer off...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A lot of research goes into opinions and really the totality of the lawsuit.

It's amazing how just one screw up can put an innocent person behind bars forever, or can get a killer off...

this one is odd. It seems to run counter to a decision a few months ago that Califonians who possess marijuana, even with a doc's script can be arrested by federal officers.

The majority here seems more to be taking exception to Asshcroft's interpretation of the law.

I can see how you might se ten or eleven cases dealing with the same issue. In this case, they don't say you have a right to die, they just say Asscroft can not issue an interperative order that has the force of law in this instance. wierd.

 

[matriarch]

I know exactly what you mean. In fact, in England 'jargonese' has become such a problem that an organisation was set up to try and counter it.

The Plain English Campaign

In fact, you have a similar society in the States, Plain Language

Maybe we all ought to join ????

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I know exactly what you mean. In fact, in England 'jargonese' has become such a problem that an organisation was set up to try and counter it.

The Plain English Campaign

In fact, you have a similar society in the States, Plain Language

Maybe we all ought to join ????

Works for me

Luckily, I can make my way through most of the jargon, if I choose to apply myself, but it is a chore.

 

[rgraham666]

Every group of experts now does that, Colleen.

One of the reasons I stopped being a computer programmer is that I refused to use the jargon.

Each expert system now has its own dialect of English.

Partly it is to form a barrier to communication. By speaking in jargon, the power that comes from expertise remains inside the expert organisation. No expertise comes out, no power is lost and non-experts are dependent on the experts to do anything in the expert's field.

It is also a rite of passage. You aren't really considered an expert until you master the dialect. When I was a computer programmer, even though I had done it for fifteen years, I was considered less of an expert than people with fresh B.Sc. straight from university.

Because I couldn't speak the dialect.

 

[oggbashan]

Say what you mean: mean what you say.

Lawyers have had a problem with language since the time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans.

They have to express decisions in a way that cannot (or they hope cannot) be misinterpreted. For that they have to use very precise language that excludes all other possible meanings. That is very difficult.

In the UK judges are often criticised for asking for definitions of words that are in common use e.g. 'What is a skateboard?'. While the judge may know what a skateboard is, until the word is part of a court's record together with its definition, then a 'skateboard' is meaningless in law.

At least US courts only have to deal with English. Pity the judges of the European Court of Human Rights. Their decisions have to be promulgated in all the official languages of the European Union.

In the Middle Ages 'Hang the lawyers!' was a common cry of any revolt or demonstration because the law was expressed in outdated Norman French that no one but another lawyer could understand. The common people resented being deprived of their rights by written decisions that they could not understand.

There is still a conflict between the need to be absolutely precise in a legal decision and to let that decision be understood by the general public. In the UK The Times newspaper's legal reports fulfil that role because they give the meaning of the decision in understandable language. However any lawyer wanting to use the precedent quoted by The Times would have to read the actual decision, not The Times' translation of it.

UK Acts of Parliament are often accompanied by Explanatory Notes that can be longer than the wording of the Act. The intention is to make the Act understandable but in a court of law the exact wording of the Act would be used and the Explanatory Notes have no value.

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

Every group of experts now does that, Colleen.

One of the reasons I stopped being a computer programmer is that I refused to use the jargon.

Each expert system now has its own dialect of English.

Partly it is to form a barrier to communication. By speaking in jargon, the power that comes from expertise remains inside the expert organisation. No expertise comes out, no power is lost and non-experts are dependent on the experts to do anything in the expert's field.

It is also a rite of passage. You aren't really considered an expert until you master the dialect. When I was a computer programmer, even though I had done it for fifteen years, I was considered less of an expert than people with fresh B.Sc. straight from university.

Because I couldn't speak the dialect.

As a remember of a profession that at times involves jargon, I'll offer this defense. "Good" jargon serves a purpose. It allows one to refer to a complex idea with one word, and it allows precision in identifying the issue or issues examined. This is useful when one deals on a regular basis with complex concepts that are not normally discussed outside of the workplace. It's quicker to refer to them by specialized words.

There is, of course, a great deal of "bad" jargon in the world, words whose purpose is to inflate plebian ideas by making them sound clever or at least confusing. I put most "management-speak" into this category, as well as a fair bit of legalese. I'd suggest that the litmus test for good/bad jargon is that good jargon allows greater precision and/or density of meaning - more ideas in ratio to fewer words - and bad jargon either leaves the ratio the same while substituting less familiar terms or creates more words with fewer ideas behind them. And George Orwell says to knock that the hell off.

 

[Honey123]

As a remember of a profession that at times involves jargon, I'll offer this defense. "Good" jargon serves a purpose. It allows one to refer to a complex idea with one word, and it allows precision in identifying the issue or issues examined. This is useful when one deals on a regular basis with complex concepts that are not normally discussed outside of the workplace. It's quicker to refer to them by specialized words.

There is, of course, a great deal of "bad" jargon in the world, words whose purpose is to inflate plebian ideas by making them sound clever or at least confusing. I put most "management-speak" into this category, as well as a fair bit of legalese. I'd suggest that the litmus test for good/bad jargon is that good jargon allows greater precision and/or density of meaning - more ideas in ratio to fewer words - and bad jargon either leaves the ratio the same while substituting less familiar terms or creates more words with fewer ideas behind them. And George Orwell says to knock that the hell off.

Swatting you on the nose with a newspaper..."Speak English dammit!"

Actually I agree with you. It's the people with a higher degree that can tell someone to go kiss their ass in Latin all the while smiling and those who aren't so smart to think they are giving them some real good advice....

 

[cantdog]

Every group of experts now does that, Colleen.

One of the reasons I stopped being a computer programmer is that I refused to use the jargon.

Each expert system now has its own dialect of English.

Partly it is to form a barrier to communication. By speaking in jargon, the power that comes from expertise remains inside the expert organisation. No expertise comes out, no power is lost and non-experts are dependent on the experts to do anything in the expert's field.

It is also a rite of passage. You aren't really considered an expert until you master the dialect. When I was a computer programmer, even though I had done it for fifteen years, I was considered less of an expert than people with fresh B.Sc. straight from university.

Because I couldn't speak the dialect.

For similar reasons in reverse, Mao's China simplified the characters and developed pinyin.

 

[impressive]

I'd suggest that the litmus test for good/bad jargon is that good jargon allows greater precision and/or density of meaning - more ideas in ratio to fewer words - and bad jargon either leaves the ratio the same while substituting less familiar terms or creates more words with fewer ideas behind them. And George Orwell says to knock that the hell off.

Worstest is government bureaucratese. Adds NOTHING but syllabilification. I refuse to utilizationalize it.

Word.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Worstest is government bureaucratese. Adds NOTHING but syllabilification. I refuse to utilizationalize it.

Word.

I call it bureaucroatian.

 

[rgraham666]

As a remember of a profession that at times involves jargon, I'll offer this defense. "Good" jargon serves a purpose. It allows one to refer to a complex idea with one word, and it allows precision in identifying the issue or issues examined. This is useful when one deals on a regular basis with complex concepts that are not normally discussed outside of the workplace. It's quicker to refer to them by specialized words.

There is, of course, a great deal of "bad" jargon in the world, words whose purpose is to inflate plebian ideas by making them sound clever or at least confusing. I put most "management-speak" into this category, as well as a fair bit of legalese. I'd suggest that the litmus test for good/bad jargon is that good jargon allows greater precision and/or density of meaning - more ideas in ratio to fewer words - and bad jargon either leaves the ratio the same while substituting less familiar terms or creates more words with fewer ideas behind them. And George Orwell says to knock that the hell off.

Maybe 'useful' and 'obscure' would be more succinct terms terms, Shang.

I think the litmus test shows in whether the dialect prevents the experts from speaking to the world at large.

The purpose of an expert, in my opinion, is to hold knowledge that can then be dipped into by society. If the dialect cuts the experts off, it can't be good for society.

And management is a secondary activity that for some reason our society has raised to godhood. So they would be the worst offenders. If we knew how unnecessary they were, most of them would be out of a job and would have to work for a living.

My favourite book on how to run a business repeatedly hit on the note that management was less important than the people on the firing line.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Who was it that said, If you can't explain what you do to a 12-yr. old, you have no clue what you're doing?

Or words to that effect?

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

I suspect it's quite a bit the problem of architecture, since I don't find the vocabulary that strange.

Maybe if you looked at the structure, and got a sense of it (by a quick read), you could home in on key parts. One feature of decisions is canvassing older ones, which means things take a while to get to the point. Also it's frequent for decisions to begin by making concessions in the direction that the decision is NOT going to go. Hence an SC decision around the present NY Times case of reporting about secret wiretapping, would, if the Justice planned to endorse the free press (rather than hang the reporters), start by conceding the impact of 'national security' on free speech. The concessions to the 'other side' can confuse the reader.

I'm sure if you've read historians, esp of a couple hundred years back, you're used to long sentences that read like our paragraphs do now.

Just some thoughts. Don't forget there are abstracts and summaries of many decisions.

J.

 

[SonOfAGhost]

There is still a conflict between the need to be absolutely precise in a legal decision and to let that decision be understood by the general public.

That is a phallacy propogated by the lawyers.

Firstly there's the small matter of Ockham's Razor. Most laws have a fairly broad intent and most precedents have a fairly broad application. The more the precise the wording of the law or it's subsequent interpretations the less of the spirit of the original survives. Each time a new precedent is set, a little more gets trimmed off.

An example here in Canada is judges in criminal trials are required to 'consider' pre-trial custody time in sentencing (along with several other 'considerations'). Over the last few years this has morphed into criminals being given 2x or 3x credit for time served. If defense attorneys don't think they can win they now advise clients to not even apply for bail and then stall the trial for as long as possible. Most violent criminals (and nearly all non-violent ones) no longer serve any jail time after conviction now. Does anyone really think that was the intent of making pre-trial custody one of several (8 if memory serves) 'considerations'?

Which brings me to the second flaw in the excuse. One of the principle tenets of the interpretation of a law is the 'reasonable person' test, sorry I don't know the legal name for it. It's very simple really. All laws are to be enforced/applied as they would be understood by a reasonable common citizen and people are expected to know what a reasonable common citizen would know. Basically laws are to be implemented using common sense and citizens are expected to use common sense in their own conduct. An average person off the street would know what a skateboard is to use a previous example. The average citizen would understand 'sexual relations' to include a blow job to use a more infamous example

I remember when I first became familiar with this tenet. Police in Vancouver got a tip from a heroin using informant that he was buying from a previously convicted dealer at his home. Police watched the residence for several days and saw a large number of people, including other known users, make brief visits (usually under 5 minutes) to the house at all hours of day and night. Based on this they applied for and got issued a warrant. Searched, found large amounts of pot, hash, heroin and cocaine (this was before crack was as common as now) as well has cash and unlicenced, unregistered firearms (I assume handguns which are extremely difficult to get legally in Canada). At trial the judge threw it all out and the criminals walked becase the judge felt only police, not the average citizen, would have concluded from what they knew that there were drugs in the house and thus the warrant was in-valid.

Just compare the beautiful combination of breadth and clarity of purpose of some older legal documents like the Magna Carta and the US Constitution to your town/city's more recent regulations about how long you're allowed to park on Main St. The first 2 documents actually fit on one side of a single (albeit large) piece of paper each. When was the last time a national government run by lawyers did anything on a single sheet of paper? 'Hang the lawyers' is right.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShanglan
I'd suggest that the litmus test for good/bad jargon is that good jargon allows greater precision and/or density of meaning - more ideas in ratio to fewer words - and bad jargon either leaves the ratio the same while substituting less familiar terms or creates more words with fewer ideas behind them. And George Orwell says to knock that the hell off.

Worstest is government bureaucratese. Adds NOTHING but syllabilification. I refuse to utilizationalize it.

Word.

I think the technical term for that is "gobble-de-gook"

 

[elsol]

Anyone ever read a supreme court opinion?

I am currently working through the majority opinion on the Oregon Death with Dignity lawsuit. I'm fairly intelligent, have a fairly large vocabulary and have a good grasp of reading for comprehension, but I swear, these things seem WRITTEN to confuse.

It occured to me that the reason your average person seems to care little about court decisions or to accept simplistic explanations of them, is in a large part due to how much work you have to put into understanding one.

I wonder now if that isn't intentional? The result is obviously a well deserved smack on the nose with a newspaper for the asscroft/gonzolaes AG and justice department. But on a narrower field, I can't help but get the feeling there are fewer than a thousand people in the country who aren't lawyers who could muddle through it and get the exact reasoning and scope of the decision.

It's actually an easy one

a -- Here's the issue at hand
b -- Here's the statute Gonzo is justifying his action
c -- Here are the pre-established precedents that would allow Gonzo to do what he watns
d -- Here's how Gonzo's case is different from each pre-established precedent and thus Gonzo can't use them
e -- Fuck off Gonzo

---

Most opinions can be meta-languaged into simple formal logic truth statements.

It is not intentional, but even pre-law students read hundreds of these things so after a while you start to write like them.

Especially after a formal logic class... then it's like drawing by numbers.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Lot of opinions here

Basically, I can see ogg's point. You have to be specific to the Nth degree, least the opinion be useless because it can be interpreted several different ways. However, the durther you go in this direction, to keep a lawyer from finding a loophole, the more obfuscated the simple intent becomes.

I can also see j's point, in that much of the confliciting information is there to recognize points that were raised in oral argument that might have bearing, but, in the end, are not what the decision in based upon.

The basic here, unless I misread, is that Asscroft and later gonzolaes, in effect issued an interperative rule based on language in the federal controled substance law, that they then tried to enforce as law. The justices ruled that the Ag did not have either the requisite expertise or sole authority to make such an interperative ruling and then treat it as law. Futrther, the congress did not grant them the wide latitude to issue such ruling and have them carry the force of law.

2 earlier cases, establish the authority of Executive officials to make such ruleings and have them stand up. So both were quoted heavily and the precedent they set was outlined. It was then shown that Ass/Gonzo did not meet the standard of either.

The court also appeared troubled by the wider implication of the ruling. Specifically, that it would perpetuate a radical shift in the fed/state balance by making medical decisions by state liscenced professionals subject to federal review.

It just seems to me to be wrong that your average man wouldn't be able to get through the explanation of terms and previous cases without getting lost in the wording. this particular ruling effects nearly every citizen of the US. Not because we will all reach the end oflife and have to make decisions, but because the federal government, in this instance, was barred from seizing authority over medical matters it has never enjoyed.

It does seem to me that one of the primeary reasons the court exists, to interpret the law, is being lost because the language and formula of delivery used are so arcane, the average person just can't or on't work their way through them to understand the impact on thier rights.

 

[Somme]

I call it bureaucroatian.

...or a minor Swahilian dialect?

 

[Guest]