Answer

The classical Legally Blonde film challenges the viewer’s perspective on the meaning of being a blonde girl. This statement is evident in how Elle Woods transitions from the character of a blonde ‘fashionista’ to a legal expert. As an expert, the audience gets a glimpse of various legal doctrines. The clip highlights a case of clear precedence as the law student debates Swinney v. Neubert’s case. Upon this backdrop, this essay analyzes how the law students in the identified clip approach the precedent of Swinney v. Neubert. The answer makes explicit reference to the readings by Karl Llwellyn and Claire L’Heureux-Dubé.

Llwellyn (2016) noted that legal experts see cases strictly depending on what they bring to it and hardly more. He insists that the experts who bring in more see more while those that bring noting see nothing. These statements align perfectly with Warner Huntington and Ellen Wood’s debate as they present strong arguments in favor and against Swinney. According to Huntington, Swinney was a private sperm donor and was allowed visitation rights to his girlfriend’s room as long as he adhered to the terms set by the girl’s parents. In defense of his argument, Huntington notes that the defendant was responsible for siring a child with the girlfriend since, without the man’s sperms, the child would not have existed. This argument is persuasive since it makes biological sense that a woman cannot conceive without male sperm. Since this argument is convincing, Professor Callahan buys into the idea.

However, Elle refutes the argument, questioning if Swinney maintained a thorough record of all the sperms he had emitted during his lifetime. When questioned about her assertion, Elle persuades the audience that unless the defendant provided proof that he was fertile and that he had made each girl he had an encounter with conceiving, then he had no parental claim to the child in question. The most intriguing part of her argument arises when she asks why this particular sperm is treated special compared to the others the defendant had issued as a private sperm donor. Elle further questions that if sperms emitted during masturbation can be considered fertile and thus, treated as reckless abandonment of unborn children? From a legal perspective, her argument holds a lot of weight, and for this reason, the professor declares her the victor in the debate.

This case does not merit as an original precedent since it is not a one-of-a-kind legal rule since before the Swinney v. Neubert case, there have been persistent arguments on when sperm can be considered a person. In such a case, Llewellyn (2016) explains that the argument and subsequent ruling for this case should be based on stare decisis, which is a term used in law studies to mean that the court had to make a ruling that promotes or stands with previous decisions made on the case by the other courts, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. The use of stare decisis in interpreting this case is essential as the debate on sperm donation has existed since the onset of philosophy (Fiser & Garrett, 2012). As a result, cases on this topic and their subsequent ruling are rarely altered over time.

This illustration affirms that the law students’ case not only touches on the topic of persuasive precedence but also on binding precedents. Previous cases ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada will present critical insights to be considered in such a ruling. From the arguments presented, the higher courts’ decisions made binding decisions in favor of the plaintiff as the defendant failed to produce the documents justifying the virility of his sperms (Varsava, 2019). In addition to binding precedence, Elle and Huntington’s argument mostly appeals to audiences who value persuasion. This statement is backed by thoughtful and intelligent reasoning that highlights the need for critical thinking in the law profession. It enables the lawyer to challenge or dispute claims made by either the defendant or the plaintiff. Even though the arguments are not binding, the courts at the same level are likely to view the case from the strong arguments presented by Huntington and Elle. The verdict reaches in courts from other jurisdictions could also influence the judge’s decision regarding the plaintiff’s claims.

The complexity of making a binding ruling is further backed by the critical approach posited by Karl Llewellyn. Llewellyn, who is a legal realist and law professor, encourages critical thinking. As evident in the case, the two law students exhibit critical thinking, enabling them to ask thought-provoking questions. By encouraging critical thinking, the law students are consistently taught how to condition their brains to think from a dissent position. This statement is seconded by L’Heureux-Dubé (2000), who encourages lawyers to think of opinions that challenge commonly held beliefs.