Sunday, June 6, 2010
If I understand Rick's response correctly,
Rick's position is simple and unconditional--simple because unconditional. By contrast, I agree with Goldsworthy and Kay. Which means that my position is not unconditional--and, therefore, not simple. Maybe Rick and I will get to clarify our respective positions, by talking with one another about cases--real and/or hypothetical--in Brooklyn later this month.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/06/if-i-understand-ricks-response-correctly.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Michael, I am not able to evaluate your position -- to think about, for example, whether it is actually more or less "simple" than mine -- because you have not given me any reasons for it. (There are some reasons one might have for holding your view -- e.g., "holding this view makes it possible to say that all of the judicial decisions whose outcomes I like are correctly decided" -- that are not particularly complex.) You have reported that you "agree" with Goldsworthy and Kay, but have not told me why; I have given you a reason, in my earlier post, why one might (as I do) disagree (provisionally, anyway) with them. Why am I wrong (and, of course, I might well be)?