I love the law because ...

February 12, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Why do you love the law? We posed this question to our readers a few weeks ago in anticipation of the Feb. 12 issue. We wanted to highlight lawyers’ love affair with the law. If you chose to pursue a legal career, you must love the law, right?

We received great responses from a variety of lawyers and even heard from a law student and court interpreter. It’s clear that people and the relationships you build with colleagues, mentees, and even clients are a major reason why you love the law.

Here’s your chance to tell us why you love the law. You can write a vignette like what we published, tell a story that highlights your love, or even compose a poem to explain your feelings.

To borrow on language from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s famous sonnet: How do you love the law? Let us count the ways …
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • love?
    I don't love the law. I love my wife. I love my kids. I love my mom. I loved my dad. they have my love. Not the law. In fact, when one considers all aspects of Law in my life, there is a lot about the law that I hate. But, I believe in the law. Specifically our law, here in the USA. Top to bottom. The constitutions, statutes, legislatures, juries, judges, witnesses, wins, losses, good results, bad results, the whole enchilada. Even all the stuff about it I hate. our legal system, is a huge part of what makes this country different; a big part of what makes us who we are as Americans. I believe in it as a profession enough to have spent most of my life doing it. but not love.
  • Love it
    I love the law in states where the law allows the elite to be questioned. The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy. Sandra Day O'Connor Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter mush. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. Robert Jackson
    • thoughtcrime
      Just go self-report yesself right now mister under 8.3 for implying anything bad about judges which is verboten! under 8.2, or, if not we can easily glom it under the vague and ambiguous 8.4. Got your hemlock ready, smart-aleck!
      • nicht mehr
        Oh dear meletus! I am with a well connected Indy firm now, so my days of drinking hemlock are well behind me. That is for sole practioners, plebes. We guardians can even arse shoot our wives paramores or brandish weapons at former clients and skate. Only the sole practioners go to gallows for speaking truth to power in this Utopia. St. Valentine, dance for us.
        • sarc alert
          Not really Socrates. All just plain ole sarcasm to make a point. We can all love the law when it is just. When it is proportional. When it is blind. That is loving justice and basic fairness. But when the law becomes merely social control to advance the interests of a ruling elite, an elite that has oh so many ways to get around the law, to escape the law upon which they crucify the. underclass .. . Well that law can be loved only by the corrupt and those being corrupted.
        • Law love and MLK
          Socrates again .... same poster, all Socrates above .... think about this ... Hitler loved the law: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Martin Luther King, Jr."

        Post a comment to this story

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        Sponsored by
        ADVERTISEMENT
        1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

        2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

        3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

        4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

        5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

        ADVERTISEMENT