Thread by @shipwreckedcrew

So, I'm reading @patterico "takedown" of the "dishonest" opinion written by Judge Rao.
And as I finish I have a sudden recollection of an event in my first year of law school that has provided a never ending source of humor among some of my friends.

It was just after the final exam for Real Property. Some of us were standing around and discussing how difficult the exam was -- 8 fact patterns, 4 multiple choice questions each, over 4 hours. But the test was 78 pages long.

There is this arcane and horribly confusing principle from English common law called the "Rule Against Perpetuities" that is the bane of most first year law students. As we were discussing the test, another one of my friends walked up with a big smile on his face and said ...

"Aren't you guys happy he didn't involve the "Rule Against Perpetuities" in any of the fact patterns?"

We all burst out laughing. There were issues involving the Rule in every one of the 8. He got a D+

That story came to mind in reading @patterico.

Someone go over to his story and ask him if there is a reason the words "Separation of Powers" don't appear a single time anywhere in his long post on today's ruling.

Nearly the only basis for his criticism is that Judge Rao prevented Judge Sullivan from holding a hearing, and then ruled that he must grant the motion because there was no evidence that would support any other decision.

Essentially, all @patterico says -- over and over -- is that Judge Rao prevents a hearing that might gather evidence, and then orders dismissal on the basis that there is no evidence offered.

THAT is a simplistic sophistry being put forth at a "legal" argument. I'll explain more in a story I'm writing for tomorrow.

Patrick -- why do the words "separation of powers" not appear in your post?