Lawyers are famous for their confusing and convoluted use of language, with their “wherefores” and “hither to’s” and their “party of the first part”. Here’s an example from Adam Freedman’s collection, The Legalese Hall of Shame: “I am herewith returning the stipulation to dismiss in the above entitled matter, the same being duly executed by me.” I don’t know what this attorney is talking about but the judge should throw the book at him—some big heavy book.
So, it came as a surprise when Judge Raymond Dearie recently admonished Trump’s lawyers, not with legalese but with a homey proverb. The lawyers had refused to state that Trump declassified the secret documents in his possession and, at the same time, implied that they might later use declassification as a defense. “My view of it is,” the judge said, “you can’t have your cake and eat it.”
I have to say, this homily always bothered me. I mean, how can you eat your cake unless you have it? And what’s the point of having a darn cake if you don’t eat it? The answer, of course, lies in the order of events. If, say, the party of the first part were to ingest a cake in its entirety, it could be reasonably observed that said person was no longer in possession of the cake, naturally allowing for the gastronomical transference into his digestive tract which would alter its composition such that it could no longer be considered a cake per se. And, if the cake eater were, as is likely, to become sick and throw up the item previously known as “cake”, the resulting goo would bear little resemblance to its former identity. Therefore, you can’t eat your cake and still have your cake. Case closed.
These old sayings have stubbornly taken up residence in our brains and we accept their assertions as fact. After delivering his cake proverb, Judge Dearie said, “As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.” It’s like he had just quoted settled case law and the attorneys had no choice but to concede.
“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.” Really? Who says? And yet we all know this saying and, like it or not, we believe it as gospel. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” This is probably meant to be conservative economic advice to an impetuous investor, but it assumes that, as much as you might want the two birds in the bush, you should be content with the bird you actually have in your hand. If I discovered I had a bird in my hand, I would let it go immediately and wash my hands with soap and hot water.
Mothers have their own special collection of sayings that cannot be questioned. “I’m only doing this for your own good.” “That’s never going to get better if you pick at it.” “Still waters run deep.” “You’re barking up the wrong tree.”
We may not always know what these sayings mean. But it’s enough to know that they’re true.