Tanner Swett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy<[email protected]> wrote:
Tanner Swett wrote:
The last sentence, in parentheses, might not be a great idea. Without
it, we have to say "I extend the deadline" whenever someone calls a
case, which is easy enough; with it, every CFJ that is only marginally
relevant to the event could lead to a second CFJ that is also
marginally relevant to the event, which (in theory) could lead to an
infinite s cascade of CFJs.
Hence the "substantially".
Even so, there's still a fuzzy line, isn't there?
Yes, the idea is to let case law emerge if/when needed, and meanwhile
the person(s)-who-may-have-won can periodically say "I extend the
deadline in case <judicial activity> didn't already implicitly do so".
