As a substantive matter, it is not worth continuation. As a rather bizarre evolution of an argument, with inherent interest as a case study, it is hard to say. I will make at least one more attempt to clarify:
The fact that something is logically valid does not mean that it is factually correct. To say that there were no inconsistencies with the interpretation is merely to state that it was plausible, not that it was true.
It was not a question of "extending a case", whatever that means. It was a question of setting forth an similar incident to show merely that affecting one's opinion sharply could involve something other than partisanship. As I said, showing that there could be an alternative was preliminary to anticipated further argument, which, due to distraction, never quite materialized.
The legal team's doubts do not mean that they had significant doubts on the strength of the argument, it means that they found one justice unpredictable as regards the issues raised.
I can repost the Skokie exchange. You did, in fact, argue against my point of view, in a contemptuous fashion. I find it bizarre for you to mention your sympathy at this point. (Repost forthcoming.....) |
