Cameron Miranda
The saying if the facts are against you, argue the law is often attributed to the Chicago poet and journalist Carl Sandburg. This quote is a piece of advice for lawyers, suggesting that if the facts of a case are not in their favour, they should focus their arguments on the law. The full quote is: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. This quote has been the subject of academic analysis, with some interpreting it as a strategy for dealing with a results-oriented judge. The idea is that if one can shape the narrative of a case to align with a judge's policy goals, they may be able to influence the outcome.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Source of the saying | Carl Sandburg, Chicago poet and journalist |
| The saying | If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. |
| Interpretation | When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler. |
| Application | When faced with a results-oriented judge, it is important to develop a sound factual record. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
If the facts are against you, argue the law
The saying, "If the facts are against you, argue the law", is often attributed to the Chicago poet and journalist Carl Sandburg. It is a well-known piece of advice for lawyers and others, suggesting a strategy when the facts of a case are not in your favour.
The full quote is often given as: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell". This quote has been used in various contexts, including by politicians such as Al Gore, who said: "When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler".
The idea is that if the facts are unfavourable, one should focus on the legal interpretation or technicalities, and vice versa. It is a strategic approach to debating or arguing, and it can be effective in shifting the focus away from unfavourable elements and towards areas where one has a stronger position.
However, this approach may not always be advisable, as it can depend on the context and the audience. For example, in a legal setting, a judge may see through such tactics and be influenced by them when making their ruling. It is also important to consider the potential consequences of such arguments, as they may not always be effective and could potentially backfire.
AI Revolution: Discovering Physical Laws with Data
You may want to see also
Explore related products
If the law is against you, argue the facts
The saying "if the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts" is often attributed to the Chicago poet and journalist Carl Sandburg. This quote is a piece of advice for lawyers and is particularly relevant when dealing with results-oriented judges.
When the facts of a case are against you, it may be more effective to focus on the legal arguments and vice versa. This strategy can be used to shift the focus away from the weak points of your argument and towards the areas where you have stronger grounds. Arguing the facts involves presenting evidence and testimony to support your position, while arguing the law involves interpreting and applying legal principles and precedents.
For example, if you are facing a results-oriented judge who is believed to have certain policy preferences, it may be important to develop a sound factual record. This makes it harder for the judge to rule against you as it limits their ability to manipulate the facts to match their policy goals.
On the other hand, if the law is against you, you may need to get creative and find ways to challenge the applicability or interpretation of the law in question. This could involve raising doubts about the law's relevance to the specific case or highlighting any ambiguities or contradictions in the legal language.
However, it is important to note that this strategy may not always be effective, especially if both the facts and the law are strongly against you. In such cases, it may be necessary to consider alternative approaches or strategies to achieve the desired outcome.
Virginia Law Enforcement: Arresting Illegal Aliens?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
If the judge is with you, argue the facts
The well-known adage, "If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts," is often attributed to Carl Sandburg, a Chicago poet and journalist. This quote is often followed by the statement, "If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."
However, an addendum to this aphorism suggests that the approach to arguing the facts or the law may depend on the judge's stance. "If the judge is with you, argue the facts. If the judge is against you, argue the law." This addendum highlights the potential impact of a judge's policy preferences in cases focusing on factual matters.
When a judge is favourable, arguing the facts can be advantageous as cases decided on facts are believed to be less likely to be reviewed by higher courts. Therefore, judges may see these cases as opportunities to pursue their policy goals with a lower risk of reversal.
To further support this strategy, it is essential to develop a solid factual record, leaving minimal room for the judge to interpret or manipulate the facts to align with their policy objectives. This approach increases the difficulty for the judge to rule against you, as stated by Al Gore, "When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts."
Dressing for Success: Law Firm Interview Attire
You may want to see also
Explore related products
If the judge is against you, argue the law
The saying "you can't argue the facts, argue the law" is often attributed to Chicago poet and journalist Carl Sandburg. The full quote is: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell".
This quote is a humorous piece of advice for lawyers, suggesting that if the facts of a case are unfavourable, a lawyer should instead focus on the law, and vice versa. If both are against you, then the only option is to become loud and aggressive.
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz shares a similar strategy with his students: "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table".
However, this strategy of arguing with a judge is not always advisable. While there may be times when it is necessary to argue with a judge about a pressing issue, it is generally unlikely to change their mind. Instead, it may be wiser to respectfully disagree and present a counterpoint, preserving the record for appeal.
In addition, the effect of a judge's policy preferences is magnified in disputes that focus on factual matters, whereas an increased focus on legal standards may dampen the effect of these preferences. This is because judges believe that cases decided on facts are less likely to be reviewed by higher courts, and therefore see factual cases as opportunities to indulge their policy goals. Therefore, when faced with a results-oriented judge, it is important to develop a sound factual record to make it harder for the judge to rule against you.
Lexington Law: Can They Really Fix Your Credit?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
When you have neither, holler
The saying, "When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler," is often attributed to Al Gore, although it is believed to be derived from an old piece of advice for lawyers, first quoted by Chicago poet and journalist Carl Sandburg.
Sandburg's original quote is: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." This quote has been interpreted in various ways, with some suggesting that it is a tactical strategy for lawyers to navigate hostile judges.
The saying emphasizes the importance of adapting one's argumentative strategy to the strengths of one's position. If you have supporting facts, focus on presenting and emphasizing those facts. Conversely, if the applicable laws support your case, concentrate on legal arguments. However, if neither the facts nor the law is on your side, it may be wise to shift the discussion or, as Sandburg colorfully suggests, "pound the table and yell like hell."
This last piece of advice, "when you have neither, holler," can be interpreted in several ways. One interpretation is that it is a recognition of defeat, an admission that one has no solid ground to stand on and that one's position is weak. In such a situation, one might resort to emotional appeals or distractions, hence the suggestion to "holler." Another interpretation is that it is a strategic move to shift the focus away from the facts and the law, perhaps by introducing new evidence or reframing the narrative.
Ultimately, the saying highlights the importance of tailoring one's argument to the specific circumstances and recognizing when one needs to change tactics or accept defeat.
Criminal Law: State Powers Examined
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The phrase is a strategy for successfully defending cases. It means that if the facts are against you, you should argue the law, and if the law is against you, you should argue the facts.
The phrase has been attributed to various people, including jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, trial lawyers, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, Columbia professor Jerome Michael, and Carl Sandburg. However, it is difficult to pinpoint its exact origin as it was in use before Jerome Michael graduated from law school in 1906.
Some variations include: "If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table" and "When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler."
The phrase provides a strategic approach for lawyers to structure their arguments effectively. It suggests that when the facts support their case, they should emphasize the facts, and when the law is favourable, they should focus on the legal aspects. If neither the facts nor the law are favourable, they may resort to other tactics, such as attacking the opposition's argument or "pounding the table."
