This article is the type of tripe they teach us in law school that has no real world application. I get the point the author is trying to make: that you can distill argument down to its essence, and that you should. What the argument fails to take into account (to name two) is: 1. We have “splits of authority.” One court says the law is Y and one court says the law is X. Now it’s roses are red in this jurisdiction an…
What do you suggest the students learn in addition to or instead of this?
Two things:
1. Many people don't start from a premise of: "Let's find out what The Law requires of us and we'll proceed accordingly, out of a sense of duty, loyalty, and obedience."
Instead, to a first approximation, their starting point is: "I don't give a [hoot] about The Law except pragmatically — I want to do X, so I want to know: (i) under The Law, what pain could others inflict on me if I were in fact to do X, and (ii) by what means could I prevent, or at least mitigate, such an outcome?"
2. Weather forecasting is the best analogy I've come up with to describe legal analysis: You have to make a best guess about how various "energy sources" — litigants; legislatures; courts; armed camps — will interact at a given place and time.