But considering a High Court has innovated and nullified a marriage with Latin incantations, perhaps the Supreme Court was obliged to rediscover the roots of such incantations. This seemed fairly obvious to the man on the street. In consequence, the High Court’s judgment nullifying Shafin Jahan’s marriage to Hadiya became a “ sanctuary of errors”, in the words of the Court. Having interacted with her, the Court felt Hadiya did not suffer from mental incapacity or vulnerability. The reasoning peters down to this – the Court interacted with Hadiya some time ago. Having exhaustively discussed Habeas Corpus, Parens Patriae and other necessary Latin incantations, the Court discards each of them as irrelevant to the case. The story settles to a less lurid reality, choking synonyms aside. This occurred, as the judgment states, on account of the “Everestine effort” of a father which, is a “manifestation of the idea of patriarchal autocracy and possibly self-obsession with the feeling that a female is a chattel.” The first paragraph then introduces the case to the reader as one where the liberty of a person was “ illegally smothered”, “ throttled”, “ strangulated” such that the “‘ signature of life’ melts”. Like a fairy tale in reverse, it all starts happily with an allusion to a rainbow (“ rainbow is described by some as the autograph of the Almighty and lightning, albeit metaphorically, to be the expression of cruelty of otherwise equanimous ‘Nature’”). From the looks of it, even writing it was not. Reading the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shafin Jahan v. Judgments are meant to explain a Court’s reasons for its decisions. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and restored the marriage. Shafin Jahan, Akhila’s husband, appealed to the Supreme Court. It further directed Police to investigate into the matter. The Kerala High Court agreed with him and nullified the marriage in Asokan KM v. He felt she lacked autonomy and was brainwashed. But the best reading of the Principle does not have such general expansionary implications.A 24-year-old Hindu woman (Akhila) from Kerala converted to Islam and married a Muslim. To be sure, some state laws do subject foreigners to their requirements, and the All-Subjected Principle conditions democratic legitimacy on granting foreigners some say in determining them.
I argue that this objection misconstrues the logical structure of the legal requirements enshrined in domestic laws: domestic laws typically enshrine narrow-scope, not wide-scope, legal requirements. The scope objection claims that this argument presupposes an implausible account of subjection and hence of the All-Subjected Principle, which absurdly implies that all domestic laws subject foreigners to their requirements. This argument appeals to the All-Subjected Principle, which implies that democratic legitimacy requires that all those subject to political power have a right to participate in determining the laws. This article, which has been assigned as required reading at national judicial conferences, examines more than twenty categories of both formal and informal logical fallacies and applies them to Justice Rehnquist’s criminal procedure opinions as concrete examples of how “crooked thinking” permeates persuasive writing even at its highest level of sophistication.Īccording to the democratic borders argument, the democratic legitimacy of a state's regime of border control requires granting foreigners a right to participate in the procedures determining it. Examples range from the familiar (e.g., begging the question, straw man arguments) to the esoteric (e.g., ignoratio elenchi, undistributed middle term). A fallacious argument is one that appears to be correct and which may be very persuasive, but which proves on closer examination to be logically invalid. A logical fallacy is a type of incorrect argument, and the study of fallacies is a sub-species of logic. Supreme Court justices, members of the world’s most powerful tribunal, resort to regularly employing rhetorical tricks and otherwise logically fallacious reasoning in their opinion-writing. Rehnquist’s opinions in criminal procedures cases as a contextual showcase, the author explores the nature and extent to which even U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
