the Zealous

r/ChatGPT 12.07.2024 post by reddituser E_Illuminate:

I'm an attorney practicing civil litigation. Without going to far into it, we represent a client who has been sued over a commercial licensing agreement. Opposing counsel is a collections firm. Definitely not very tech-savvy, and generally they just try their best to keep their heads above water. Recently, we filed a motion to dismiss, and because of the proximity to the trial date, the court ordered shortened time for them to respond. They filed an opposition (never served it on us) and I went ahead and downloaded it from the court's website when I realized it was late.

From Shapiro, Scott J., Legality, Harvard University Press (2013):

[M]ost legal academics and practitioners find the question “What is law?” distinctly unmoving. Unlike philosophers, they simply don’t see the point of worrying or speculating about the nature of law and frequently dismiss such questions as formal and arid, far too scholastic to be of any real interest or value. Richard Posner captured this sentiment well in his Clarendon Lectures: “I have nothing against philosophical speculation. But one would like it to have some pay-off; something ought to turn on the answer to the question ‘What is law?’ if the question is to be worth asking by people who could use their time in other socially valuable ways. Nothing does turn on it.”

US President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 into law on August 10, 1988. The Act formally apologized, on behalf of the United States, to Japanese-Americans who were imprisoned in make-shift camps throughout the US during World War II, and provided $20,000 in compensation for each survivor. The express objective of the bipartisan measure was to "discourage the occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil liberties in the future."