The more I think on this the more it feels like a deepity. It might be the *result* of a rule is to consolidate power, but “point” implies intent. Is the proposition you’re trying to make about the rule, the impact, or the intent of the rule-makers?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or... to monetize exceptions?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Zoning laws (although apparently the Japanese system is way more flexible)
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
1/Yessssss. Along these lines, there is a Frank Easterbrook article, Abstraction and Authority, which argues (i) fixing the level of generality (or abstraction) at which a rule will be interpreted & construed is damn close to the entire game in legal argument; and, (ii) judges
-
2/should strive to find an appropriate level of generality as dictated by the law before them & their judicial role, which includes an oath of loyalty, etc. (Otherwise, with no fixed level of abstraction, any rule is infinitely plastic --- a finding Posner perversely exalted as a
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.