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. | ||
Wikipedia tells us the bright line test originates in US constitutional law where critics have argued that overly simplistic “bright-line” rules, can unjustly deprive US attorneys of their 9th amendment rights to filibuster indefinitely without arriving at a useful conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted that “no single set of principles can ever capture the ever-changing complexity of an attorney’s ''ad hoc'' opinion.” | |||
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]]. | ||
Revision as of 15:46, 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.
Wikipedia tells us the bright line test originates in US constitutional law where critics have argued that overly simplistic “bright-line” rules, can unjustly deprive US attorneys of their 9th amendment rights to filibuster indefinitely without arriving at a useful conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted that “no single set of principles can ever capture the ever-changing complexity of an attorney’s ad hoc opinion.”
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!