Indian Litigation and Discourse on Points of Law

  OBJECTIONS TO DOBBS V. JACKSON (OVERRULING ROE V. WADE ) ON FIRST PRINCIPLES (Here is an attempt to counter certain primary arguments in the United States case Dobbs v. Jackson (the case which overruled Roe v. Wade ). The exercise is to attack them on first principles and not so much on precedents.) 1.   Case of Democratic Process "Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe." Argument...

Force Majeure, Parade of Horribles, and Zombie Apocalypse Ken Adams  in one of his blogs about Force Majeure provisions wrote that lawyers tend to throw every possible word to deal with the uncertainties of the future(link in the comments). He termed it a ‘parade of horribles’ and argued that keeping mindlessly adding to the list does more harm than good as the other party can find holes in the definition to prevent liability. The contract below illustrates the issue well. One of the grounds is Zombie Apocalypse. What if there is only a Zombie occupation affecting the use of services? Will it not be covered since apocalypse is specified? Will you wait for the WHO declaration of the apocalypse? The problem with the 'parade of horribles' approach is that the horribles lack specificity and throw a lot of balls in court’s courts. Pun intended. A better way is to keep the Force Majeure Clause general and insert carve-outs where you do not wish the parties to enjoy the benefit of For...