After three days I'm still stuck reading the same excerpt from Ronald Dworkin's "What Is Law?" How productive, Self. Not.
I'm dying to watch Season 2 of One Tree Hill, which thankfully my brother has, but I will exercise self-control and wait until the exams are over. I went from feeling disgusted with Nathan to liking him and thinking he's damn cute - which he is. Too bad the actor still couldn't really act by the end of the season. I also went from not liking Haley to really liking her, especially her and Nathan 'cause they're like, so cute. And I like Brooke too. Honestly? She's gorgeous. On many occasions she reminded me of Summer from The OC (which, by the way, sucks major ass now) because they're both ditzy-ish characters with a heart of gold or whatever but - and I hate to sound shallow (except I don't) - Brooke is definitely prettier.
I finally got round to finding out the exact dates of the exams and I marked them on my calendar and I got a huge surge of excitement just thinking of all the free time I'd have when May 3 comes around. Oh, yeah. I can't wait.
I'm going to Taipei with my dad. Just my dad. I don't know how that'd work, but it beats being stuck in Singapore. He's gonna take me to the National Taiwan University! Haha, how exciting (really). I'm going to see if I can crash their law lectures. Should be interesting at the very least.
Anyway, that Dworkin excerpt is a great summary of the main issues we dealt with in legal theory. It's quite worrying that it's my first time reading the other half of the excerpt, and I skipped Dworkin's discussion of McLoughlin and Elmer because I'm too lazy to read them, and I'm going to skip the two judgments too because, like I said, I'm too lazy to read them, but when I got to the bits where he discussed legal positivism and natural law theory it was like a lightbulb went off in my head and things kind of clicked for once. TSH mentioned in the last lecture that the whole course was basically about Legal Positivism versus Natural Law Theory - which, yes, makes sense, kind of, but I didn't really know what the heck either theories are about and so I was only like, "Oh."
Now I'm like, "Oh!"
For the record, I think it's silly not to recognise the inevitable instances in which law is necessarily connected with morality. But then again, some natural law theorists put forth that the morally superior interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision is the more accurate statement of law; but the question is, if morals are not absolute (and I don't think they are absolute) how do we decide what is "morally superior"? If we can't decide what's morally superior, aren't we back to square one again and staring blankly at that irritatingly unclear statutory provision? If we do decide on what is "morally superior", are we being tyrannical by enforcing some people's views on everyone else?
And yet, the legal positivist stand that there is no theoretical disagreement about law but only empirical ones, that law is a historical fact, isn't persuasive to me in circumstances where strict adherence to the law as it currently is would lead to unjust and unfair results. Also, Hart wrote something about a community's acceptance of the authority of law-makers to make laws making those laws true, but if you're Singaporean you'd no doubt find that theory slightly dubious. Is a lack of objection acceptance or is it mere indifference? =
And then there's some stuff about realism which is kind of funny because it says that judges' decision and interpretation of the law is only a matter of what that judge had for breakfast, and also that there's no law, blah blah blah...kind of confusing. I also vaguely remember something about formalism or whatever but I can't remember how that works.
And now I have to go for dinner. Veronica Mars tonight! I can't wait.