-1

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9224/why-would-a-barristers-rebuttal-against-a-pugnacious-witness-be-a-head-on-coll
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9226/why-is-a-defendants-declining-to-give-evidence-a-ruse
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9233/how-can-a-queens-counsel-be-an-excellent-advocate-but-unexceptional-lawyer-and
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9269/why-does-duncan-kennedy-opine-legal-services-practice-far-more-fun-intellectual

The asserted reason for closure as 'primarily opinion-based' do not appear to consist with the inherent subjectivity of the law; while the questions above are based on opinions, they originate from 2 highly experienced and erudite jurisprudents. May I please request undeletion and reopening?

| | | | | |
  • 3
    Not every thing ever said by every judge or lawyer (no matter how experienced and and erudite they may be) will be on topic for Law Stack Exchange. In particular, the questions that you've asked aren't answerable with reference to the law: some look like questions about the use of the English language (in which case you should find someone to help you learn English), others just look like subjective comments on life (why would someone finding something more fun and intellectually stimulating be a question of law?). – jimsug Jun 5 '16 at 1:08
  • @jimsug Your first comment is evident; the emphasis is that my questions involve law. I accept that the 3rd and 4th are not questions of case or statutory law, but they do engage legal practice. The first 2 are certainly questions of advocacy in law. – Accounting Jun 5 '16 at 1:17
  • 1
    You're really ignoring the point - the first two aren't about law, they're about things that happened (and in those cases happened to involve law). They may just as easily have been describing a rodeo or boxing match. – jimsug Jun 5 '16 at 4:34
3

The questions cannot be answered on the basis of practically-obtainable facts. They have in common the fact that you don't understand an author's reasoning. The only fact-based way to answer the question is to engage in a dialog with the author, to determine why he said what he said, and that is impossible.

| | | | | |
2

Here are some general thoughts that might be helpful in addressing opinion-based questions, some types of which probably should be on topic.

The law is certainly opinion based, and this is, of course, why we have various forms of judicial opinions (majority, concurrence, dissent, plurality). For properly formed questions, differing "opinion" would tend to crop up in the form of multiple answers to a single question. This seems well and good. But what is a proper question?

When we get into the subjective realm here on Law.SE---which is an important part of the law---perhaps a good broad-pass filter is: is this the sort of question one could write an opinion about that would have a solid grounding in law or fact? Under this interpretation, we'd probably be happy with something like: "Here's a fact pattern about a bar fight...under the laws of California, what are some colorable excuse-based counters to a battery charge, and have courts tended to accept them?"

However, the answer to a question like the fourth, "Why does X think legal services practice is more stimulating than...," doesn't have any basis in law. We'd then ask, does it have any basis in fact or the application of facts to laws? In this example, X states mere personal opinion, albeit based on interesting observations. This seems better suited to a book club or discussion group since it would be hard to craft an answer that brings out the nuances without in-depth knowledge of non-law/fact aspects of secondary sources.

That brings up a second rule-of-thumb: is the question better suited to a tag? If so, we don't have such a tag on Law.SE...just on Meta, at which point we could ask whether it belongs on Meta in the first place.

| | | | | |
-1

Those questions were closed because they were primarily opinion-based.

Questions that ask for opinionated, rather than factual, answers are not well suited for the model that this community, and the wider Stack Exchange community uses.

I'm going to suggest reading the following:

| | | | | |
  • Please correct me if I misunderstood, but your answer does not address my question, because I already recognised that law can be based on opinion, and because opinionated questions are allowed on StackExchange for subjective subjects. So 'primarily opinion-based' does not suffice as a reason. – Accounting Jun 5 '16 at 1:12
  • 1
    @LePressentiment I formulated an answer after thinking about your comment for a bit. The "opinion-based" reason is a little odd a law site, but maybe we can find a way to give it the right teeth – Pat W.♦ Jun 8 '16 at 13:57
  • @PatW. Thank you for your efforts. – Accounting Jul 25 '16 at 22:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .