October 12, 2006
In my Legal Philosophy class, we had to read an excerpt from the case Roe v. Wade, which as most people know was the abortion case from 1973 which begun the road towards a woman's right to chose.
I have to admit, I'm struggling with the assignments that follow. All moral issues aside, reading this case was like watching a movie that starts off slow. You are confident it's going to pick up sooner or later, and you keep watching, waiting for the plot to develop something of substance and begin to fascinate the mind. And you wait. And wait. And wait.
And the next thing you know, your screen is filled with "The End" and the credits are rolling. You sit there for a minute, stunned, not really sure if you even know who the main characters are, and you certainly don't know the plot.
In law, (from the cases I've read) generally you have the history of the case, the legal analysis, and the conclusion.
The history of the case is the characters and setting.
(What happened? Who did it happen to?)
The legal analysis is the "plot".
(What laws affect and alter the setting/characters)
The conclusion is finding out what happened in the end.
(How does the law fit the facts)
Roe, at least the excerpt that I read, starts off okay...the history isn't developed very much, but there's enough information you know who's who and what's what...at least, you have a generally vague idea.
But that's where it begins to fall apart. Once you've kinda developed a feel for who's who, you expect a juicy plot, full of captivating investigation of case law and mesmerizing inspection of the Constitution. Instead, you find a relatively pointless examination of "attitudes throughout history" and next thing you know, "The End" (the conclusion) has arrived and you're left wanting more. Taking the movie analogy, you know the girl got away in the end, but you're not sure why she needed to in the first place. In Roe, you know the court said that a woman's right to privacy includes the right to early abortion...You're just not sure what reasoning they used to reach that conclusion. The history they examined revealed conflicting opinions throughout the past on the issue, and there's no really clear indication as to how the Court determined who they agreed with. To be certain, you have a vague confusion of an understanding, but you're just left wanting more.
It's possible reading the full opinion may clear up some of the mystery, but like going to the sequal where the original was so poor already, I have no interest. Of course, this was all moral issues aside....
"One must be convinced that he is advocating a righteous cause
or representing a person who has a righteous claim."
-Renewing Your Mind as you Study Law, page 20
