Bright-line test: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
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}}