Ambiguity as legal decision making

kelley kwalker2 at gte.net
Mon Dec 4 12:28:54 PST 2000


At 07:59 PM 12/4/00 +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:


>Charles, et al, are dead on. Why _did_ the Supremes take this case if this
>is all they had to say? --jks

institutionally imperative. how could they not? vanity? desire to be part of it just in case something more disastrous came up? i think it's the same reason why the florida leg too up the issue of choosing electors: a player in the game of poker.

kelley



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list