From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis - ha ha ha
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.213226.11811@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>So you think the maxim of jurisprudence, that substance weighs
>>>more than form, is junk?
>>
>>A brief is substantive.  No?  If you feel that briefs are only a
>>formality, that explains a lot...
>
>What are you trying to say?  You haven't heard the maxim, that law
>respects substance above form?  Do you understand, are you really so
>ignorant that you think the maxim is talking of forms versus briefs?
>In case you didn't know, it means that the law is supposed to pay
>less attention to a clumsily worded/framed brief than to whether
>the litigant's cause is just.   It appears you think that a cause
>should be thrown out for poor form, regardless of correctness
>of law.

No, I believe that you have utterly confused what constitutes
"substance" and what constitutes "form."  A citation error, a
misplaced punctuation mark, a typo, a sloppy margin, poorly worded
arguments -- that's form.  Manifest errors in what the law is,
what is and what isn't good law, question-begging, arguing well
off-point, citing long dead cases for absurd propositions, and
stubbornly insisting that obsolete law is controlling -- that's
substance.  I take issue with your lack of substance, and you 
complain that I'm attacking your form, which only goes to prove
my point.  

>>>That if my pleading were lousy, that would
>>>justify ordering me to pay costs regaularly disallowed?
>>
>>Well, that's what the FRCP says...
>
>Citation/quote?  I don't believe you on this, until you give me
>the wording.

Rule 11 requires cases to be "well-pleaded."

>>>As for my citing old cases, such as Truax, you seem to have missed
>>>the fact that Mike's authorities actually proved my point that the
>>>fundamental cause of action for malicious defamation is unquestioned.
>>
>>That wasn't your point.  At least, it wasn't your point when you first
>>started citing Corrigan.  You never did address my post on the subject.
>>Which doesn't surprise me.
>
>Oh yes it was my point!  I rememnber well my first remark, being
>that a state could not abolish a cause of action for defamation,
>and Mike replied by asking what made me think a state could not
>abolish such a cause of action, and I replied with Truax

And you claimed that it was the fourteenth amendment that protected it.  
Which is utterly and completely an indefensible statement of current law.
Which is what I took issue with, and what Mike took issue with, though
he chose to defend his point on First Amendment grounds.

That you continue to reply with Truax without demonstrating that any
court still believes it to be good law post-Carolene Products is
indicative.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit