Man, you are perfectly articulate. Nothing superfluous, nothing lacking. I really appreciate your video, and your relevant juxtapositions to rulings of the court. Thank you!
Thank you so much, I'm before legal theory exam and couldn't wrap my head around what Jerome Frank's rule and fact -scepticism was about, but you made it sound so easy! Saving my life man!
lol... the book for my seminar in public law class is exceptionally bad. Thank you for covering identical topics to my book. Huge help for writing my papers XD
13:36 that isn’t really a coherent position from the position of Frank in the first place. The whole point is the law *is* decisions. The point is what the background for why certain decision are actually made and what the outcome is. In this context we can talk about right and wrong, the point is there no special outside antotrary appeal outside the social reality of what the discourse is, social reality of the background and effects. The belief is it is possible to describe those. We can describe what arguments are used, which ones are accepted, which ones could be accepted (the idea is also to imagine alternative ones which could potentially be accepted but which were not, that is quite a crucial point, ie. as opposed to the all or nothing- what the actual discourse and justifications were, versus a position which would just have no provable likelihood do any effectiveness, instead decomposing it into different “levels” of alternative possibilities to be assessed) The idea that written statutes are “laws” and “rules” mixes up or ignores the point Can’t in terms of are “able” to do it compared to what they should do Again describing texts as “sets of rules” just ignores the linguistic point
That's how most people get through everyday real life as well: First we choose & then we justify. Rarely do we think things through b4 making a choice: Too much trouble, & often there's not enough time to think things through.
Are you really going to be fooled by Frank’s sophistry!? He tried to repudiate formal logic by means of formal logic. So foolish and easily seen through with some thought.
Fair enough. Not everyone agrees with this stuff. In fact, if this is to be believed, I think the entailments might be more devastating than Frank suggests.
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
Man, you are perfectly articulate. Nothing superfluous, nothing lacking. I really appreciate your video, and your relevant juxtapositions to rulings of the court. Thank you!
i'm happy you appreciate it!
This was awesome, extremely helpful in understanding Frank and Legal Realism, great stuff!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Please make more videos, You have superb delivery style even for different jurisdictions like mine.
i'm so glad that you found this helpful! i look forward to making more videos on similar topics soon!
Thank you for creating this content. As many have stated below, you are very articulate, and I have learned a lot!
Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you so much, I'm before legal theory exam and couldn't wrap my head around what Jerome Frank's rule and fact -scepticism was about, but you made it sound so easy! Saving my life man!
glad to help a bit.
An excellent explanation on legal realism, I never thought this way, thanks for the details professor
i'm glad you enjoyed it!
American Legal Realism specifically, there’s also Scandinavian Legal Realism, that’s a different thing
Marvellous explanation! realism is more clear to me. Maybe now I can understand the texts
Glad I could be a part of it for you!
lol... the book for my seminar in public law class is exceptionally bad. Thank you for covering identical topics to my book. Huge help for writing my papers XD
I'm so happy this helped! Good luck on your papers!
Thank you George you better than many law professors I know
Well, different perspectives and approaches, I suppose.
Thanks so much for this simple, clear and well-delivered explanation on Legal Realism!
Glad it was helpful!
0:40 putting them all together is very bad
That’s soemthing all legal philosophies potentially are supposed to address
Thanks from mexico .wonderfull explanación.🇲🇽
De nada!
IDK if Tushnet is a good stand-in for CLS
very good video
I’m impressed
I’ll check out more of your stuff soon
thanks! I hope the other stuff impresses you too!
13:36 that isn’t really a coherent position from the position of Frank in the first place.
The whole point is the law *is* decisions. The point is what the background for why certain decision are actually made and what the outcome is. In this context we can talk about right and wrong, the point is there no special outside antotrary appeal outside the social reality of what the discourse is, social reality of the background and effects.
The belief is it is possible to describe those. We can describe what arguments are used, which ones are accepted, which ones could be accepted (the idea is also to imagine alternative ones which could potentially be accepted but which were not, that is quite a crucial point, ie. as opposed to the all or nothing- what the actual discourse and justifications were, versus a position which would just have no provable likelihood do any effectiveness, instead decomposing it into different “levels” of alternative possibilities to be assessed)
The idea that written statutes are “laws” and “rules” mixes up or ignores the point
Can’t in terms of are “able” to do it compared to what they should do
Again describing texts as “sets of rules” just ignores the linguistic point
I think reasonable people can interpret complicated texts in different ways.
11:27 statutes, “laws” identified with texts of statutes
Amazing stuff here
Thanks!
That's how most people get through everyday real life as well: First we choose & then we justify. Rarely do we think things through b4 making a choice: Too much trouble, & often there's not enough time to think things through.
That is exactly Jerome Frank’s point!
Amazing video!! Thank you so much
i'm glad you liked it!
This was super helpful in understanding my coursework!
Glad it was helpful!
Good explanation ...thanks
thanks... it's just how i understand it, but...
Thank you so much!
Happy to help!
Thank you! Helped me understand a lot
Glad it helped!
Great video.
Thanks!
You're the best explainer. ever.
thanks!
From which book are you quoting Jerome Frank?
from Frank's LAW AND THE MODERN MIND, reprinted in Adams' PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS IN THE LAW, 5th.ed.
Thank you professor, you have made my day here in Zambia.
Are you really going to be fooled by Frank’s sophistry!? He tried to repudiate formal logic by means of formal logic. So foolish and easily seen through with some thought.
constructive comment bro 👍
Fair enough. Not everyone agrees with this stuff. In fact, if this is to be believed, I think the entailments might be more devastating than Frank suggests.
I like this, but I wish you would say "she" for the abstract third person pronoun. "He" is the proper pronoun when gender is unknown.
Thanks you
I have a jurisprudence exam and this explanation is just what I needed about Jerome Frank 🫶
I’m happy it was helpful! I hope you passed the exam!