DIS: Re: BUS: A little briefer than hoped
Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu>
2014-10-20 16:54:32 GMT
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> The second is a little more concerning. The judgement of FALSE will,
> as things currently stand, be a composite of the following two
Assuming FALSE holds, but the Moot opinions aren't clear on which
type of FALSE, it will be settled by followup CFJ on ais523's attempt
to change the rules with +4 days waiting. I was waiting to call that
CFJ so that it didn't jump ahead of the Moot process. It would be
similar, under the old Appeals process, if two judges gave an AFFIRM
but for different reasons each.
> It's exactly the same text. G. has argued - as I understand it - that
> moving it from Rule 101 signaled an intent to stop interpreting this
> clause (presumably along with the various other clauses based on the
> repealed bill of rights) in an abstracted, relatively informal manner
> (focusing on substantive outcomes rather than the precise terms the
> rules are using). However, I have two problems with this.
My argument was more specific than this. It was that removing the
Rules from the context of Agreements in general (of which the Rules
are an instance) changed the context very strongly. When the clause
governed agreements in general, it had to be read flexibly. It no
longer *has* to be. Whether it *should* be is what the moot is about.