Hey Dutchie... you are determined not to deal with these...
I infer because you have no intelligent answers...
Perry
Your inference is part of my answer. It's not a logical inference, but rather a taunt, hence the dangers of abandoning logic for romance.
I don't want to derail this thread, especially to discuss a topic that isn't of great interest to me. That seems counterproductive. However, to pay you more respect than you've shown me, I'll provide a short answer to your question.
The practice of law has been populated by many lawyers and jurists who have purported that applying the law requires a unique wisdom or intellectual discipline, instead of acknowledging the legal system to be a simple download from the King of the process of keeping nobles from engaging in wasteful armed conflict to settle their disputes, as every King prefers the full resources of his nobles to remain available only to him.
Law may be just another manifestation of politics, but it doesn't require anything more than logical discipline to apply the political will that is manifest in its requirements. Black letter law, in short. Sorry Oliver, no sale. If you are a lawyer, you'll already be aware that that there is scholarly support for my view of the law, despite the views of Justice Holmes.
I'm aware of other schools of legal thought. I happen to think the notion that there is some unique kind of legal wisdom springs from the vanity that is so commonplace to lawyers/judges and/or the desire to maintain a monopoly over legal opinion. To avoid the scrutiny and criticism that any intelligent member of the public could bring to bear to question the many seemingly irrational and/or inconsistent rulings of the legal system, it is the strategy of some lawyers/judges to declare that only lawyers can properly understand what happens in the legal system. While some knowledge of legal process and its governing principles is necessary for intelligent criticism, ultimately judges are so named because they apply their judgment. Sometimes that judgment is logically defensible, sometimes not, depending on the judge and the issue. Pretending that the determination of legal issues is perfectly predictable is sheer intellectual dishonesty for anyone with enough experience within or with the legal system.
I hope this answer satisfies your curiosity, because again, it's a topic that I don't find very interesting (it's really akin to a religious discussion), and is entirely off the tracks of this thread.