The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
that CFJ adequately considers why.
For rules A and B, let:
“A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
“A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
“A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to B.
The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y < X
& X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I agree
with that.
BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a
conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t see
how that can be characterized as a conflict.
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
> >> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
> >> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> >> "deference" as something that never happens.
> >
> > None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
> > would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
>
> Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
> on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
> what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
>
> Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
> instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
> /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
> R1030.
>
