John, I've bolded some words below, and those emphases are mine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSA
Quote:
|
I would encourage you to review the thread. The matter under discussion with Spats was not about authority within a circuit.
|
Good advice on the review. I didn't respond to something you said about a comment by Spats, I responded to something you said about one of my comments.
|
Your review should show have shown you that the issue under discussion with Spats is the comment to which you began this exchange. "The matter under discussion with" doesn't mean that you were responding to his text.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSA
Quote:
That doesn't bear on whether a circuit split indicated a lack of clarity in the law on an issue. A circuit split on an issue indicates a diversity on that point, not an unequivocal state.
A diversity on the point doesn't indicate that a position is not valid law either.
Here, you argue again against a claim no one made. Why?
|
The assertion that the position was law before Abramski is not incorrect. That is a claim you have made several times now.
|
That is incorrect. It may be sloppiness with idiom that is confusing you. Typically, when you read "
a law" that indicates a code section. As you've noted, that's a legislative product, not a judicial one, and the contrary hadn't been asserted or suggested. "Law" by itself may indicate an area rather than anything more specific as in
Law on implied malice in torts arising from drunk driving will vary.
The law on an issue is singular. People don't generally write
the "singular" law because the concept is singular, and we try to avoid redundancy.
The singular law on the issue of federal regulation of abortion is currently Dobbs. Prior to Roe, there wasn't "
the law" on the issue, though there was law on the topic of abortion in many states.
One could be idiomatically correct in noting that there was diversity
within the law prior to Abramski (the Sup Ct decision rather than the man), but that construction would support Aguila Blanca's observation of lack of clarity.
With the table set,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSA
Quote:
|
That doesn't bear on whether a circuit split indicated a lack of clarity in the law on an issue. A circuit split on an issue indicates a diversity on that point, not an unequivocal state.
|
A diversity on the point doesn't indicate that a position is not valid law either.
Quote:
|
Here, you argue again against a claim no one made. Why?
|
The assertion that the position was law before Abramski is not incorrect. That is a claim you have made several times now.
|
No, John. You are misreading the text.
The law was equivocal prior to the decision in Abramski. That doesn't mean that
the [singular] law in circuits with contrary caselaw (a form of law) aren't law, they just aren't
the law. I have not claimed that the decisions of courts that had decided consistent with Abramski weren't law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSA
Quote:
|
Now that you are aware of the circuit split prior to the Abramski decision, it doesn't make sense to assert that the Abramski rule was the law, i.e. the clear single settled rule, prior to resolution of the circuit split. That's the incorrect part.
|
Ah, I see. You are adding the word "settled" to my assertion and then claiming it's incorrect based on that strawman. Laws do not come into being at the time they are settled. SCOTUS rulings either overturn or confirm EXISTING laws, they do not create them.
|
If you don't concede that Abramski produced
the singular law on this point, meaning that it settled the circuit split, then we have more work to do. If you do already know that, then your protest about a strawman doesn't work for you.
In our system, courts make laws frequently; that's the body of case law. The Sup Ct makes laws frequently. We now have caselaw that a federal moratorium on state evictions as recently arose is not within federal authority. The caselaw on that point arises from the Sup Ct's decision.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSA
Quote:
|
The idea that the rule in Abramski was uneqivocally the law on this issue...
|
Hmmm... Interesting how when you add words to what I said it changes the meaning.
If you want to address my comments, it would be more productive to do so. Putting words in my mouth and then addressing the resulting strawman is pointless.
|
Since no one put words in your mouth, it's not a strawman, and I doubt that tom is made of straw.
Addressing this isn't pointless since it resolves an equivocation for the purpose of explaining the issue. Where you understand that law on this specific point was diverse and there was a split prior to Abramski, you agree that it produced
the singular law on the point that there is now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSA
Quote:
|
That doesn't make the resolution of those issues unquestionable as noted above.
|
Pretty sure that SCOTUS (and therefore every court in the land) would disagree with you that this issue remains questionable.
|
An illustration of your confidence in an assertion that is not correct or relevant to the explanation is as good a time as any to wind this up. Feel free to chase your tail if it continues to please you.