82,891
edits
Bright-line test: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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| | ||
[[File:3 trajectories guided by the wave function.png|450px|thumb|center|A bright line test yesterday. (Needless to say this was not filmed in America)]] | |||
}} | |||
(''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 U.S. constitutional law where the founding fathers held it to be a self-evident truth that overly simplistic “bright-line” rules had great potential to unjustly deprive US attorneys of their 9th amendment rights to filibuster indefinitely without arriving at a useful conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Jefferson D. Hogg observed that “no single set of principles can ever capture or limit the ever-shifting complexity of an attorney’s | Wikipedia tells us the bright line test originates in U.S. constitutional law where the founding fathers held it to be a self-evident truth that overly simplistic “bright-line” rules had great potential to unjustly deprive US attorneys of their 9th amendment rights to filibuster indefinitely without arriving at a useful conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Jefferson D. Hogg observed that “no single set of principles can ever capture or limit the ever-shifting complexity of an attorney’s discursions.” | ||
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]]. | ||