Okay, rules are not really meaningless. It's just that they take on greater meaning when the context in which they are applied is understood.
"Sure", you reply. "What else is new?" And you are correct. What I'm referring to here is Prop 8's effect on Evidence. I spent most of the day yesterday on Torts (defam, IOP, PL) and Evidence. My Evidence material was scattered on my desk this morning when I turned on the lights in my study dungeon. When I went to bed at 12:30 this morning, I was frustrated by Prop 8. The opening page of the BarBri supplement read like it was stuck in a "divide by zero" error. Something was wrong with the formula. It was tracking back on itself, a variable wasn't being properly initialized, and I was trying to decipher Prop 8 with nothing. When you're programming, a calculation that attempts to divide something by nothing gets you a "divide by zero" error.
Well, That variable got filled this morning. Yay! Another roadblock bites the dust.
Regarding the title of this post; I really, really don't like to simply apply rules without knowing the reason why. I don't have to know the reasoning behind a rule to be able to apply it as required, but it helps anchor it in my brain if I can grow it some roots. When I picked up the BarBri CA Evidence supplement this morning, I found that roots had sprouted. What a relief.
Now, It's time to find a foundation for the CA Civ Pro distinctions.
I know, I know... I'm behind all y'all. But I'm not that far behind. And I have long legs so I can catch up when we get close to the finish. What's that, you say? The finish line is fast approaching? Indeed. That's why I'm sprinting now.