Beating Bad Precedent

Well, the one very useful thing about reading a million cases in law school is that you definitely learn how to construct your own legal arguments. One of the more useful learning experiences is seeing how judges justify their decisions in cases that reverse precedent. I mention this because John said in his last post that he was writing a memo for a position that seemed to run contrary to the case law. From what I have seen so far, there are two ways to handle a situation like that. First, you distinguish the hell out of your case from the "bad cases". Sometimes this can be very difficult, and in case reading you can see brilliant judges straining to distinguish their case from "bad" precedent. "Well in that case, the defendant threw a tomato at the comedian, but in this case defendant threw a banana." Not overly persuasive is it? However, I have read cases where judges have made distinctions that are not much less ridiculous. The other way to do it is to embrace the bad cases and somehow construct an argument that makes it seem like your position is completely consistent with these cases. This is obviously extremely difficult to do. The great Benjamin Cardozo routinely employed this strategy in his decisions. Although, as my contracts teacher would say last semester, all Cardozo opinions should come with a disclaimer: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. 

I don't know about John, but I find it more interesting and a more worth while learning experience to argue for positions that appear to run contrary to all the case precedent.  I like having the odds stacked against me. I don't know... maybe I'm just a masochist.