I saw this post at Point of Law and it reminded me of political arguments. Plaintiffs’ lawyers tend not to be conservatives, and conservatives tend to argue for things like natural law, and the “right” thing. Yet the author of this article suggests that plaintiffs’ lawyers are making conservative arguments to sway jurors – particularly the allegation that they’re seizing on confusion and fear:
The plaintiff bar has made a good read on the confusion and fear - ethical, emotional and legal - of these volatile times.
In the court of law and of public opinion, it is arguing increasingly about the "right thing to do." That, of course, relies on natural-law theory [lex naturalis] or the fundamentalist belief that holds that there exists a law whose content and authority are established by nature, therefore valid everywhere. Throughout Rhode Island's lead paint public nuisance litigation and afterwards in taking on the state's Supreme Court decision in the media, Motley Rice spoke in terms of some universal legal and ethical code.
. . . .
What the defense bar seems to be doing to neutralize this power includes arguments based on points of law, changing times, community mores…
The success of tort reform efforts has also tilted the legal system towards relativism instead of absolutist dictates.
And it’s usually conservatives who believe relativism is inherently evil and wrong.
Food for thought.