Bright-line test: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{def|Bright-line test|/brʌɪt lʌɪn tɛst/|n|}} | {{def|Bright-line test|/brʌɪt lʌɪn tɛst/|n|}} | ||
(''American''). A conceptual exercise bestowing a so great degree of confidence in the mind of a member of the New York bar that it cannot, as a matter of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] theory, much less ''legal'' theory, exist. A bright-line test is a paradox; a kind of unachievable [[Platonic form]]; a sunlit upland to which all US attorneys wistfully aspire, but which all know, and thank their lucky stars, they will never have to encounter in person. | (''American''). A conceptual exercise bestowing a so great degree of confidence in the mind of a member of the New York bar that it cannot, as a matter of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] theory, much less ''legal'' theory, exist. A bright-line test is a [[paradox]]; a kind of unachievable [[Platonic form]]; a sunlit upland to which all US attorneys wistfully aspire, but which all know, and thank their lucky stars, they will never have to encounter in person. | ||
Thus, the words “[[bright-line test]]” are always uttered in the negative, and with insincere remorse — e.g., “sadly, there’s no [[bright-line test]] for this”. The logical impossibility of a bright-line test is a [[US attorney]]’s means of evading any responsibility for anything she says, does, or commits to a lengthy written [[legal opinion|memorandum of advice]]. | Thus, the words “[[bright-line test]]” are always uttered in the negative, and with insincere remorse — e.g., “sadly, there’s no [[bright-line test]] for this”. The logical impossibility of a bright-line test is a [[US attorney]]’s means of evading any responsibility for anything she says, does, or commits to a lengthy written [[legal opinion|memorandum of advice]]. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*[[Chicken licken]] | *[[Chicken licken]] | ||
*[[US Attorney]] | *[[US Attorney]] | ||
{{c|Paradox}} | |||
Revision as of 15:30, 15 January 2021
|
Bright-line test /brʌɪt lʌɪn tɛst/ (n.)
(American). A conceptual exercise bestowing a so great degree of confidence in the mind of a member of the New York bar that it cannot, as a matter of metaphysical theory, much less legal theory, exist. A bright-line test is a paradox; a kind of unachievable Platonic form; a sunlit upland to which all US attorneys wistfully aspire, but which all know, and thank their lucky stars, they will never have to encounter in person.
Thus, the words “bright-line test” are always uttered in the negative, and with insincere remorse — e.g., “sadly, there’s no bright-line test for this”. The logical impossibility of a bright-line test is a US attorney’s means of evading any responsibility for anything she says, does, or commits to a lengthy written memorandum of advice.
Usage
“There is no bright line test in the rules, and consequently there is always a potential risk that regulators might be inclined to take the view that your good faith practice on which your firm designed its SOX implementation might not be recharacterized as a safe harbor to Title III of Regulation G of Rule 14-a7 of the ’40 Act ...” zzzzz zzzz zzzz HEY! WAKE UP!