Comments by "Rutvik" (@rutvikrs) on "'Remote control allegations insulting to Congress presidential candidates,' says Rahul Gandhi" video.

I'd have asked him, where his next vacation will be.
3
@Pierre In so it'd perfectly legal of Modi did it today?
2
@Pierre In chalo Bhai 2024 pakki ho gayi. Thanks for the input.
1
@Pierre In all credit goes to you. If the constitution is "followed"(a legal misnomer if you bother to ask a constitutional lawyer), then democracy jaaye bhaad me.
1
@Pierre In what is wrong with "legal misnomer"?
1
@Pierre In rookie mistake. In academia and professional circles, the word misnomer is used as domain specific phrases to describe categorisation errors or bad nomenclature. It's not "misnomer" as a word but a phrase "(field) misnomer". For example "Medical Misnomer" means a bad name for a disease or "historical misnomer" means anachronism. "Legal misnomer" is a phrase used to indicate an extreme or warped characterization of a charge( it is a legal misnomer to call consensual eloping as a case of kidnapping) or in this case, a misapplication of verbiage due to lack of specificity. This phrase "follow the constitution" is used, only if there is in an agreed context. Imagine how confusing it is if a traffic police pulls you up and says " Sir, please follow the constitution". What does that even mean? He is technically right, laws are a part of the constitution, but what is he asking me to do? What am I doing wrong? So yeah, the specious use of "follow the constitution" is a legal misnomer.
1
@Pierre In try putting it in quotes and search on Live law or academic websites like stor(that starts with J, just found YT deletes my comment for naming them, whew) 😂
1
@Pierre In if you are looking for paper titled "legal misnomer" then you are not going to find one. I didn't find a paper titled "raining cats and dogs", which is unscientific, how can animals condense and fall back on earth? If you were talking about usage, then I don't think you want to put in the effort, when the phrase was used with quotation on stor with J, there are 7 papers that use it explicitly, with 2 additional papers citing a statement with that phrase. Google scholar lists at least a hundred instances of usage in academic papers. I am pretty surprised livelaw does not show a single case tbh, but good news. Indian kanoon has 5 confirmed instances where this phrase has been used. Oldest usage is the year 2000, Narinder Kaur & anr vs Amar Jeet Singh Sethi. So yes, "legal misnomer" is a phrase. I thought you had a poor grip on politics and society. The problem seems to be deeper, bud.
1
@Pierre In I'd completely agree with you if it was just those 7 weirdos and me. Maybe we hatched a conspiracy to help me win a YT comment debate 20 years in the future. But these lawyers and judges seem to be in on the act. I have already quoted an instance from Indian legal system. Maybe he was a Sanghi like me. Let's check the American legal system: Kronsich vs Howard savings institution; Year: 1977 Quoting part of the judgement: "In what way could that have more specifically expressed an intention to create a trust than by the use of words "to be held in trust"? The answer to this challenge is to recall that words are only guides to intentions; that a relation described as "trust" may be a LEGAL MISNOMER if the relationship, in fact, is otherwise." The RSS must have paid off this guy because I wasn't around before 89. Great investment. There are 4 more cases from the American Judical system(available on Justia) that use the phrase, one from the UK, one from Australia, three from New Zealand. This phrase seems obscure because such instances are rare. But if you are in academia, this comes up a fair bit especially discussing Indian legality and constitution. I am belabouring the point, but in my defence it's hilarious.
1
@Pierre In 1. A funnier story. Not making it up. A guy defended the emergency on a YT thread. He picked up a semantic argument and when he realised he was wrong, he attacked the entire legal fraternity for making "words up" not knowing that English is not a classical language but multiple Creoles that seek these "made up words and phrases". The Merriam Webster dictionary picked up the phrase "Use case" as a noun very recently despite being in colloquial and business use in IT for decades. Now please attack IT engineers as well. "How can use, be a descriptive adjective? It's a verb" 2. I am not a lawyer. I am an economist, part time academic and part time consultant. I have worked on policy analysis and consulting but law is not my thing. I don't know any lawyers or possess arcane legal knowledge. You chose to humiliate yourself.
1
@Pierre In 1. I never used the word fascist in my replies to you. I merely asked if Mudi ze can do it too as the event is being interpreted from the axiom of legality. No need for the facade of democracy as we have a perfectly legal way to retain power. 2. Your narrative of the emergency would be believed if one were not from this country or was unaware of Indian politics. If it was anti RSS and anti judicial takeover by RSS, why did the government preemptively jail the socialists and dissident sections of CPI-M, many of whom are still anti RSS like Karat, Pinarayi Vijayan and Yechury? 3. I am not doubting the validity of the colloquial phrase "follow the constitution", just pointing to lack of context when it's speciously used against the BJP which perfectly sums up the opposition. There isn't any criticism, they'd have done the same things. 4. You doubted the existence of the phrase "legal misnomer", perfectly fine till I provided you with the means to search for its usage. Not being able to acknowledge the width of its usage across literature, media, academia and case law is just pedantry for the sake of distraction. It's not 10 people who randomly used it, it's the 100+ academic papers (available on Google scholar) from fields as diverse as geopolitics to sociology to taxation to climate studies that have used it. 5 separate legal systems have judgements that use the phrase. Google Books lists hundreds of works(you were right, found an instance going back to 1927). And still you want some link to a dictionary to be convinced. Anyone reading this can tell, you don't want to be convinced. 5. I never initiated this party trick, you latched on to a phrase to disqualify my opinion and all that talk of aukat came back to bite you.
1