On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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
I see nothing about conditionals in that judgement.
My opinion at this point is that although the rules seem to do so, it
doesn't really make much sense to treat deference as something special -
any rule naturally has the ability to limit its _own_ interpretation, so
why legislate it further at all? It's completely different from
precedence, which attempts to limit a _different_ rule.