I’ve spoken before about how I disapprove of the use of Latin in the law as well as other terms of art. But let us add to that and go to other uses of language in the law that are no good.
In the law, a person can be estopped from doing something. You know what this means? It pretty much means STOPPED. In law, something can be quashed. This? It means SQUASHED. But I use these words because I’m in the law, and <insert sarcasm> I’m apparently better than you.
Now, let us consider the concept of malice. You know what malice means right? Well, you’re right…if you’re talking about an intentional tort. But not so if you’re talking about, oh, I don’t know, MURDER. In that case it’s pretty much just being cavalier and extremely reckless.
Finally, we close with the term, “narrowly tailored”. Let us consider our friend the 1st Amendment. In the event you’re talking about personal speech that the government wants to infringe upon, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s goal. You know what that means because you have a brain. Well, now imagine the government wants to infringe upon commercial speech. Well, fear not my corporate friends, that law also must be “narrowly tailored”. But wait, there’s more! When it comes to commercial speech “narrowly tailored” actually doesn’t mean the same thing. It actually means that the law must be, “a reasonable fit”. I mean, the terms are truly synonymous right? I’m gonna go with double plus fucking retarded.
I mean seriously, we come up two words that have one meaning, then go around and make one word have two meanings.
Bar Tally: 270 Hours
