Fascinating.
In US law, courts sometimes require a "clear statement" that the
legislature intended a particular outcome before it will interpret a
statute in a particular way. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44 (1996) (rejecting a particular interpretation unless
congress "mak[es]
Followup after quick rules search: we use "clear" a heck of a lot in the
rules, for things we have varying standards for (and for which standards
have varied over time). It *may* be a pretty weak standard the way we're
currently using it, so maybe that's not a scam-killer.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
> "unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.
Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
'obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.'
I don't t
^serious challenge
-Aris
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:39 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether or not this actually works, I think we all feel like it’s an
> unusually interesting and clever attempt, and it raises a serious to our
> current rules around clarity. I
Whether or not this actually works, I think we all feel like it’s an
unusually interesting and clever attempt, and it raises a serious to our
current rules around clarity. If it didn’t work, what would people think of
awarding a win by proposal?
-Aris
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:21 PM D Margaux w
5 matches
Mail list logo
