[問卦]為何律師司法官的考生 一定要背學說見解?消失
據說，律師開庭跟法官主張學說見解沒什麼用，不如主張判例或判決
就算律師是主張李茂生 林鈺雄等大師見解，
在法院也不如法院判例或最高法院判決
法官判案，更是要優先採取判例見解，而不是學說或通說
會計師國考跟醫師國考，好像沒聽過考台灣教授的個人見解
既然如此，為何律師司法官的考生 一定要背學說見解?
當律師或法官又用不到阿
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 101.14.145.87
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Gossiping/M.1481429993.A.1AE.html
※ 編輯: seacore07 (101.14.145.87), 12/11/2016 12:20:55
推
12/11 12:20, , 1F
12/11 12:20, 1F
→
12/11 12:21, , 2F
12/11 12:21, 2F
推
12/11 12:21, , 3F
12/11 12:21, 3F
好奇當律師法官用不到，為何強制要考?
醫師跟會計師國考 好像就不會這樣?
→
12/11 12:21, , 4F
12/11 12:21, 4F
→
12/11 12:21, , 5F
12/11 12:21, 5F
是沒錯，但是擔任律師 司法官的工作好像用不到
※ 編輯: seacore07 (101.14.145.87), 12/11/2016 12:24:29
推
12/11 12:22, , 6F
12/11 12:22, 6F
推
12/11 12:22, , 7F
12/11 12:22, 7F
→
12/11 12:23, , 8F
12/11 12:23, 8F
推
12/11 12:23, , 9F
12/11 12:23, 9F
→
12/11 12:23, , 10F
12/11 12:23, 10F
→
12/11 12:24, , 11F
12/11 12:24, 11F
推
12/11 12:26, , 12F
12/11 12:26, 12F
推
12/11 12:26, , 13F
12/11 12:26, 13F
→
12/11 12:26, , 14F
12/11 12:26, 14F
→
12/11 12:27, , 15F
12/11 12:27, 15F
噓
12/11 12:29, , 16F
12/11 12:29, 16F
→
12/11 12:29, , 17F
12/11 12:29, 17F
→
12/11 12:30, , 18F
12/11 12:30, 18F
噓
12/11 12:30, , 19F
12/11 12:30, 19F
→
12/11 12:30, , 20F
12/11 12:30, 20F
→
12/11 12:30, , 21F
12/11 12:30, 21F
推
12/11 12:30, , 22F
12/11 12:30, 22F
→
12/11 12:32, , 23F
12/11 12:32, 23F
推
12/11 12:55, , 24F
12/11 12:55, 24F
→
12/11 13:04, , 25F
12/11 13:04, 25F
噓
12/11 13:26, , 26F
12/11 13:26, 26F
推
12/11 13:46, , 27F
12/11 13:46, 27F
→
12/11 13:47, , 28F
12/11 13:47, 28F
→
12/11 13:47, , 29F
12/11 13:47, 29F
推
12/11 15:06, , 30F
12/11 15:06, 30F
→
12/11 15:06, , 31F
12/11 15:06, 31F
推
12/11 15:23, , 32F
12/11 15:23, 32F
噓
12/11 15:38, , 33F
12/11 15:38, 33F