Skip to comments.Lawyers Proving the 'Slippery Slope' is Real
Posted on 06/07/2009 6:33:06 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
If you've spent any time at all on Internet message boards or in college debate class you'll have seen the rafters vibrate with righteous condemnation against the "slippery slope argument." It is claimed that a worst case, ultimate extrapolation of a thing is a bad argument because it isn't necessarily a truism. Supporters of the Second Amendment, for instance, are scolded by liberals when the supporter says that any new gun law is "one more step to banning guns." The gun restricter says that the gun supporter is employing a "slippery slope" argument and that it is idiotic to claim that one new law must mean that a gun ban is the ultimate outcome. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.
It is a logical conclusion, of course, that one step won't necessarily lead to a series of other steps. But, humanity isn't ruled by logic and those small steps that ultimately lead down the road to ruin are far more common than not. Here is another example of how one step led to another to bad effect and, as is far too often the case, the situation at hand was made in the arena of the law. And recently that slope descended even further down that road to hell.
In a recent Washington Post article, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith detailed a slippery slope situation that took 200 years to slide down when activists realized that they could warp the meaning of a law written in 1789 to fit their political goals in 1980. Naturally, those political goals were a leftist's dream come true.
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
Buy lawyers say that he didn’t really mean that, that he meant something else.
Seat belt laws are a good example of a slippery slope.
First they were optional. Then they were mandatory but they couldn’t pull you over specifically for a seat belt violation. Now they pull people over for seat belt violations without having to make up an excuse.
>>>> But lawyers say that he didnt really mean that, that he meant something else. <<<<<<
Lawyers (as expected) say that in Henry VI, “Dick The Butcher” wanted to get rid of the lawyers because they were noble, courageous, and virtuous patriots who might stand in the way of his revolution.
Only a lawyer could twist Dick’s meaning that way.
In fact, Dick’s statement “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” is his expression of the first thing to do in an ideal world.
Mother Pelosi cries when you don’t wear your seat belt.
Watch the video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 and learn just who is running the USofA ever since 1913.
We are pwned pawns in the hands of rulers.
Gee, I wonder if this abusive power enjoyed by lawyers has anything to do with the fact that congress is made up of lawyers? Nah. Probably just a coincidence!
I’ve never understood why people say the “slippery slope” argument is false. Maybe someone can explain that to me.
Denial is not just a river in Africa.
Who’s denying and who’s in africa?
:-) The "no slippery slope" types are in denial, especially when it comes to gun control. As for "who is in africa?", I leave that to the sages.
Hmm. I usually wear mine, but an opportunity like that has me rethinking.
I’m sure there is a noble lawyer somewhere, on some distant planet, in some parallel universe.
Yeah, it’s the 99% of lawyers that are bad giving all the good ones a bad rep.
Yeah, not only that but who would know how much of crook lawyers are but Dick the Butcher? A crook KNOWS another crook!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.