Should the Court, however, determine that it is within this Court's discretion to appoint a three-judge panel, and instruct that panel to accept the redistricting challenges set forth in the (now-withdrawn) Petition or to defer in light of the pending federal action. — Wisconsin Dept. of Justice, Response etc.*What do you call that, a dangling antecedent?
Maybe I need a grammarian and a logician. Or maybe the DoJ does.
* Another panel, the federal court in question, noted that the same author "skirt[ed] the line of being intemperate and unduly combative."
Which is nevertheless preferable to being incomprehensible, imho.
5 comments:
From the logic angle, it's an "if" with no "then."
Yeah that's how it strikes me.
Even the sentence fragment has a scope ambiguity:
Should the Court, however, [determine that it is within this Court's discretion to appoint a three-judge panel,] and [instruct that panel to accept the redistricting challenges set forth in the (now-withdrawn) Petition or to defer in light of the pending federal action].
versus
Should the Court, however, determine that it is within this Court's discretion to [[appoint a three-judge panel], and [instruct that panel to accept the redistricting challenges set forth in the (now-withdrawn) Petition]] or [to defer in light of the pending federal action].
There's at least one more scope assignment to be had there, too, but I won't bother.
See this is why this blog has the best commenters.
Legal briefs often have that strained construct; whereas...whereas...whereas...resolved. But since this is the concluding sentiment, no "resolved" is forthcoming.
Post a Comment