On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
>> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
>> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
>> "deference" as something that never happens.
>
> None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
> would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
/conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
R1030.
