Triple V lesson

Recently, one of my egroup-mates started looking for this Supreme Court decision that we studied way back in law school. I don't know if this is still being taught in law schools, but when it was assigned to us, it was a revelation. Essentially, our venerable Supreme Court ruled that the government can't protect the stupid just because they're that - stupid. 

Now, you may be shocked at this, because that doesn't seem to be what's happening now. In recent times, we've been seeing decisions from a more activist court where the justices step in, and even without a law to support them, rule that they would exercise their powers as a court "not only of law, but also of equity."

If you ask me, this power has been one of the more abused powers of the court. When a weak litigant is losing his case, all he has to do is make sure he invokes the power of the court of equity, and whine about how he's such a poor unfortunate soul that needs extra compassion from this branch of government, since he couldn't get fair treatment from another branch. And the odd thing is, it sometimes works. Once he tugs the heartstrings of the justices, they swoop in and invoke their "powers of equity," and decide almost any which way they want - even if their decision is against the letter of the law.

That's always struck me as strange, because the rules of the game are suddenly changed mid-stream in the court battle. It's unfair for those who play by the rules when the rules can be tweaked according to the circumstances. Also, it doesn't promote certainty in the law - who knows how they'll decide next time? 

So, my short and sweet advice to practicing lawyers is, always keep that Supreme Court case in mind. Thankfully, another enterprising classmate found it even though it was decided way back in 1916 (imagine). The language of the venerable justices in that case of Vales v. Villa should be kept in one's arsenal, not only by lawyers, but also by pretty much anyone fed up with the "I'm stupid, so it's your fault" excuse. 

In pithy language, this is what that court said:

"All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives. When of age and sane, they must take care of themselves. In their relations with others in the business of life, wits, sense, intelligence, training, ability and judgment meet and clash and contest, sometimes with gain and advantage to all, sometimes to a few only, with loss and injury to others. In these contests men must depend upon themselves - upon their own abilities, talents, training, sense, acumen, judgment. The fact that one may be worsted by another, of itself, furnishes no cause of complaint. One man cannot complain because another is more able, or better trained, or has better sense or judgment than he has; and when the two meet on a fair field the inferior cannot murmur if the battle goes against him. The law furnishes no protection to the inferior simply because he is inferior, any more than it protects the strong because he is strong. The law furnishes protection to both alike - to one no more or less than to the other. It makes no distinction between the wise and the foolish, the great and the small, the strong and the weak. The foolish may lose all they have to the wise; but that does not mean that the law will give it back to them again. Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use miserable judgment, and lose money by then - indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that alone can the law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of law, the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it."